This happens in Australia. Even with a country wide tax there's nothing stopping someone from emigrating after studying is finished and thus never repaying the student loan.
So refuse to issue passports to citizens with outstanding student loans. Problem solved.
Sounds like bullshit young-Republican rightwing talking points.
It's the mentality that human beings are extremely lazy fucks by default, and believe me, it's an attitude by no means exclusve to neo-cons.
Personally, I see it as a form of projection/transference - AC is an extremely lazy fuck who wouldn't do shit with his life without negative enforcement, therefore everyone must be.
Fair enough. I guess my experiences with bad, intentionally-skewed-as-to-produce-the-desired-result "research" over the past couple decades has left me quite jaded and unable to trust any research group to not show some sort of confirmation bias.
Let’s see – you sister graduated at the top of her class and was a teacher? What is she doing now? And why are extrapolating from a single data point? That could be dangerous. But since you wanted evidence.
She's no longer on this plane of existence, but I get your point about small data sets.
The countries where pupils do best, such as Singapore, Finland and South Korea, draw all their teachers from the top third of the academic pool. In America three-quarters of teacher-training colleges accept students who graduate in the bottom half of their class.
By the way, I have a pretty good idea what Special Ed teachers do, and I greatly appreciate what they do, but of the 40 or so that I have meet none of them graduated from the top of their class or from top schools. That’s my antidotal evidence.
Here's the problem: I looked up the group who did the "research" cited on that page, the National Council on Teacher Quality, and their credentials are shady at best. Some resources:
Several months ago, U.S. News & World Report announced that it planned to rank the nation’s schools of education and that it would do so with the assistance of the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ).
Since then, many institutions announced that they would not collaborate. Some felt that they had already been evaluated by other accrediting institutions like NCATE or TEAC; others objected to NCTQ’s methodology. As the debate rated, NCTQ told the dissenters that they would be rated whether they agreed or not, and if they didn’t cooperate, they would get a zero. The latest information that I have seen is that the ratings will appear this fall.
Rating schools as a zero because they refused to co-operate? Way to screw up your own results, NCTQ.
You don’t want to ask if the pay you are offering is sufficient for a middle class lifestyle, the question you want to ask is if the pay is drawing candidates that meet your qualifications.
High quality teachers can often make more in the private sector. Teachers tend to be drawn from the bottom half of the college graduates. This tells me something. Also, most teaching positions offer high benefits, such as generous pensions, tenure, and salary advances, which tend to be back loaded - which tend to draw in the risk adverse.
Got any source citation for those claims, or am I supposed to take your word for it?
My sister was a teacher, see, and although she graduated at the top of her class, she chose to take a lower paying position as a special education teacher in a public school, so my experience is probably colored a bit differently than yours.
Where do you live that $30K/yr qualifies as an "excellent wage?" Because I live in one of the most wage-depressed parts of the nation, on the Ozark Plateau, and I can tell you for a fact that 30 grand ain't shit after Uncle Sam takes his cut.
Then again, who am I to argue with the man that brought us hops?
Sorry, but I've been wanting to use that one since I first saw your screen name.
Hey the fact is union contracts do prevent VERY bad teachers from being fired. And the net result can be very GOOD teachers get let go instead. Just because one teacher has worked for 20 years doesn't mean they should be automatically kept instead of the 2nd year teacher. Especially if the 20 year teacher is TERRIBLE.
Fair enough, I just get fed up with the constant union-bashing by people who have no idea what they're on about - they just heard a politician they think they agree with say "dur, unions bad" and parrot that line to the end.
Ah, yes, because in a field where most of the workers are barely scraping by on $30 - 40K a year, not to mention spending a fair amount of their own money on school supplies that their employer should be buying, obviously unions are the problem.
Dude, get real - this ain't the AFL-CIO, protecting the $75/hr rate of guys who rivet 1 body panel into a Chevy. Maybe if folks such as yourself spent more time trying to help teachers, rather than bitching about the fact that "OMG they have a union," education wouldn't be in such a piss-poor state.
Americans need to toughen up. Cancelling work and school because of a bit of ice and snow? Oi, your forefathers who blazed the trails to the west and through the mountains must be spinning like tops in their graves.
How well is your local government set up to handle hurricanes? Oh, they aren't, because you never get hit by hurricanes?
Well, that's basically the issue in the South right now; perhaps you should go ahead and knock that chip of your shoulder.
Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution.
Like what?
The one's about taxation.
But that won't stop simple-minded hatemongers from playing the false equivalence game.
And education perhaps.
Care to expound on that? Can you provide examples of A) a Constitutional Amendment that involved education, and B) evidence of Rand Paul's opposition? Or are you just taking this as an opportunity to do a drive-by personal attack on a certain political figure you have, for whatever reason, decided it's your duty to attempt and discredit?
Republicans actually supported integration, difficult as that may be to believe considering today's political climate.
That doesn't make any sense. You are claiming that Republicans now support segregation?
Obviously not - obviously, to someone who's not trying to further support their agenda by playing stupid, I'm talking about the modern Republicans penchant for pissing on/off minority groups. If you haven't noticed that absolute fact, you're either not paying attention, or so wrapped up in bullshit partisan politics you can't see the forest for the trees.
You need to stop stereotyping people who you don't understand.
Oh, I understand them perfectly; perhaps you are the one who needs to do some introspection before commenting next time.
I am curious if he was one of the morons that voted for the Patriot Act and other national spying bills/exception laws that allowed this to begin with
simple answer... no he did not, as he was not elected to congress until 2011, he could not have voted for it. and on that note his father did vote against it, perhaps you were thinking of his father
True.
I like how AC's comment here exemplifies the problem with trying to get anything done, politically, in America today:
1 - "What? The government is violating the Constitution? Someone should do something!" 2 - Someone does something 3 - "Oh, that guy's a moron because of his views on [insert unrelated topic], we shouldn't listen to him!"
Well sure, but this ain't history class, it's real life. Today matters in a big way.
Many are not aware the the Democrats, of all people, were once the libertarian limited government party in the US. The great Grover Cleveland was one of these. It wasn't until the 20th century that they did an about face and went federal.
Many are also unaware that it was Southern Democrats, not Republicans, who enacted and fought to keep the "Separate but Equal" Jim Crow laws on the books, way back when. Republicans actually supported integration, difficult as that may be to believe considering today's political climate.
We still call the Democratic rhetoric "liberal" thanks to this, creating confusion with the original meaning of "liberal" which is now usually called "classical liberal" to try to avoid the confusion.
Hmm, "classic liberal" is a term I've yet to hear, myself. Regardless, I agree that the co-opting of definitions for terms such as 'liberal' and 'conservative' have created mass confusion in modern politics; I contend it was done intentionally.
So, then, why doesn't Tesla just franchise out the dealerships in Ohio?
Because the only people who are even potential franchisees are already franchisees of manufacturers of gasoline cars. And their owners have a very public anti-electric stance. Elon Musk knows damn well that if he leaves Tesla sales in their tender hands, he'll never move a single vehicle.
In theory, some Random Rich Guy would bid for the franchise, right? Doesn't work that way. Guys who are already rich in one particular industry tend to stay put in that industry, under the (usually correct) assumption that they don't understand other industries well enough to make money in them. So the pool of potential franchisees is much more severely limited than one might assume. That limitation is too hazardous to the eventual success of Tesla motors for Mr. Musk to risk it. If nothing else, he's good at learning from history.
Tesla could subsidize it. Example:
I offer to "open" a franchise in my state; Tesla offers a "loan" that covers all the initial expenses, perhaps 6 months into the future (at least, long enough to establish a presence and get sales moving in the state). Problem solved.
It might not be the conventional way of doing business, but I figure that's something Tesla's major investors would be able to appreciate. Hell, if I lived in Ohio I'd be CC-ing this post to Tesla, just to put the thought in their heads.
So, from what I can tell, the main problem with this Ohio law (aside the fact it's an obvious, blatantly stupid attempt to stop one particular company from selling in the state) is that they want to prevent auto manufacturers from owning dealerships, right?
So, then, why doesn't Tesla just franchise out the dealerships in Ohio?
You can always tell a liar by comparing the actions to the words. Words aside, Republicrats/Democans have always been the party of big centralized government.
FTFY.
There's no notable difference between the two sides of the One Party, rhetoric aside.
So she thinks. But there's no guarantee that the finder didn't plug it into his laptop and download a copy of all her data before beginning his search for the rightful owner.
More than likely the finder did just that - at least it's what I'd do for the simple reason that browsing media on my hard disk is so much faster than browsing it over a slow USB link from a slow SD-card or similar media. The real question would be, did he delete the data afterwards?
For me it depends on the data. I do electronic cleaning for a local pawn shop chain, and although most of the time I don't find anything worth saving, occasionally I find stuff on old laptops and cameras is worth keeping, like when I found a treasure trove of Iraq combat videos on a broken laptop someone just gave to the store. Other times, I've found evidence of serious criminal activity, and had to save the data so I could turn it over to law enforcement.
As an aside, if you're going to pawn your laptop, then for the love of Torvalds, wipe that sucker first! That is, unless you want some asshole like me rifling through the naked pictures your hot-ass girlfriend sent while you were overseas, or turning you over the cops if you happen to be a pedo.
He had some Bitcoin stored on his glass. That's the real story.
Wasn't mentioned in TFA, although if that were the case I would consider it a cautionary tale against keeping important and unique data on easily lost/stolen devices.
Slashdot Mirror
So refuse to issue passports to citizens with outstanding student loans. Problem solved.
It's not a student loan; it's a surtax. You'd have to refuse to issue passports to any college-educated people for life.
... but it solves the problem, right?
I never said it was a good solution.
This happens in Australia. Even with a country wide tax there's nothing stopping someone from emigrating after studying is finished and thus never repaying the student loan.
So refuse to issue passports to citizens with outstanding student loans. Problem solved.
Sounds like bullshit young-Republican rightwing talking points.
It's the mentality that human beings are extremely lazy fucks by default, and believe me, it's an attitude by no means exclusve to neo-cons.
Personally, I see it as a form of projection/transference - AC is an extremely lazy fuck who wouldn't do shit with his life without negative enforcement, therefore everyone must be.
Fair enough. I guess my experiences with bad, intentionally-skewed-as-to-produce-the-desired-result "research" over the past couple decades has left me quite jaded and unable to trust any research group to not show some sort of confirmation bias.
Let’s see – you sister graduated at the top of her class and was a teacher? What is she doing now? And why are extrapolating from a single data point? That could be dangerous. But since you wanted evidence.
She's no longer on this plane of existence, but I get your point about small data sets.
The countries where pupils do best, such as Singapore, Finland and South Korea, draw all their teachers from the top third of the academic pool. In America three-quarters of teacher-training colleges accept students who graduate in the bottom half of their class.
http://www.economist.com/news/...
By the way, I have a pretty good idea what Special Ed teachers do, and I greatly appreciate what they do, but of the 40 or so that I have meet none of them graduated from the top of their class or from top schools. That’s my antidotal evidence.
Here's the problem: I looked up the group who did the "research" cited on that page, the National Council on Teacher Quality, and their credentials are shady at best. Some resources:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
An excerpt from the second link:
Several months ago, U.S. News & World Report announced that it planned to rank the nation’s schools of education and that it would do so with the assistance of the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ).
Since then, many institutions announced that they would not collaborate. Some felt that they had already been evaluated by other accrediting institutions like NCATE or TEAC; others objected to NCTQ’s methodology. As the debate rated, NCTQ told the dissenters that they would be rated whether they agreed or not, and if they didn’t cooperate, they would get a zero. The latest information that I have seen is that the ratings will appear this fall.
Rating schools as a zero because they refused to co-operate? Way to screw up your own results, NCTQ.
You don’t want to ask if the pay you are offering is sufficient for a middle class lifestyle, the question you want to ask is if the pay is drawing candidates that meet your qualifications.
High quality teachers can often make more in the private sector. Teachers tend to be drawn from the bottom half of the college graduates. This tells me something. Also, most teaching positions offer high benefits, such as generous pensions, tenure, and salary advances, which tend to be back loaded - which tend to draw in the risk adverse.
Got any source citation for those claims, or am I supposed to take your word for it?
My sister was a teacher, see, and although she graduated at the top of her class, she chose to take a lower paying position as a special education teacher in a public school, so my experience is probably colored a bit differently than yours.
Where do you live that $30K/yr qualifies as an "excellent wage?" Because I live in one of the most wage-depressed parts of the nation, on the Ozark Plateau, and I can tell you for a fact that 30 grand ain't shit after Uncle Sam takes his cut.
Then again, who am I to argue with the man that brought us hops?
Sorry, but I've been wanting to use that one since I first saw your screen name.
Hey the fact is union contracts do prevent VERY bad teachers from being fired. And the net result can be very GOOD teachers get let go instead. Just because one teacher has worked for 20 years doesn't mean they should be automatically kept instead of the 2nd year teacher. Especially if the 20 year teacher is TERRIBLE.
Fair enough, I just get fed up with the constant union-bashing by people who have no idea what they're on about - they just heard a politician they think they agree with say "dur, unions bad" and parrot that line to the end.
If union rules...
Ah, yes, because in a field where most of the workers are barely scraping by on $30 - 40K a year, not to mention spending a fair amount of their own money on school supplies that their employer should be buying, obviously unions are the problem.
Dude, get real - this ain't the AFL-CIO, protecting the $75/hr rate of guys who rivet 1 body panel into a Chevy. Maybe if folks such as yourself spent more time trying to help teachers, rather than bitching about the fact that "OMG they have a union," education wouldn't be in such a piss-poor state.
Americans need to toughen up. Cancelling work and school because of a bit of ice and snow? Oi, your forefathers who blazed the trails to the west and through the mountains must be spinning like tops in their graves.
How well is your local government set up to handle hurricanes? Oh, they aren't, because you never get hit by hurricanes?
Well, that's basically the issue in the South right now; perhaps you should go ahead and knock that chip of your shoulder.
Nobody likes a pedant.
By all means, explain how my statement is 'ignorant,' if you can. Otherwise I'll chalk you accusation up as a result of Internet Tough Guy Syndrome.
Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution.
Like what?
The one's about taxation.
But that won't stop simple-minded hatemongers from playing the false equivalence game.
And education perhaps.
Care to expound on that? Can you provide examples of A) a Constitutional Amendment that involved education, and B) evidence of Rand Paul's opposition? Or are you just taking this as an opportunity to do a drive-by personal attack on a certain political figure you have, for whatever reason, decided it's your duty to attempt and discredit?
Republicans actually supported integration, difficult as that may be to believe considering today's political climate.
That doesn't make any sense. You are claiming that Republicans now support segregation?
Obviously not - obviously, to someone who's not trying to further support their agenda by playing stupid, I'm talking about the modern Republicans penchant for pissing on/off minority groups. If you haven't noticed that absolute fact, you're either not paying attention, or so wrapped up in bullshit partisan politics you can't see the forest for the trees.
You need to stop stereotyping people who you don't understand.
Oh, I understand them perfectly; perhaps you are the one who needs to do some introspection before commenting next time.
I am curious if he was one of the morons that voted for the Patriot Act and other national spying bills/exception laws that allowed this to begin with
simple answer... no he did not, as he was not elected to congress until 2011, he could not have voted for it. and on that note his father did vote against it, perhaps you were thinking of his father
True.
I like how AC's comment here exemplifies the problem with trying to get anything done, politically, in America today:
1 - "What? The government is violating the Constitution? Someone should do something!"
2 - Someone does something
3 - "Oh, that guy's a moron because of his views on [insert unrelated topic], we shouldn't listen to him!"
Congress is how to address this issue.
So.. lynch mobs on the Capitol steps? Burning effigies in their home districts?
I'm snowballin', help me out here.
Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution.
Like what?
The one's about taxation.
But that won't stop simple-minded hatemongers from playing the false equivalence game.
True today, this wasn't always the case
Well sure, but this ain't history class, it's real life. Today matters in a big way.
Many are not aware the the Democrats, of all people, were once the libertarian limited government party in the US. The great Grover Cleveland was one of these. It wasn't until the 20th century that they did an about face and went federal.
Many are also unaware that it was Southern Democrats, not Republicans, who enacted and fought to keep the "Separate but Equal" Jim Crow laws on the books, way back when. Republicans actually supported integration, difficult as that may be to believe considering today's political climate.
We still call the Democratic rhetoric "liberal" thanks to this, creating confusion with the original meaning of "liberal" which is now usually called "classical liberal" to try to avoid the confusion.
Hmm, "classic liberal" is a term I've yet to hear, myself. Regardless, I agree that the co-opting of definitions for terms such as 'liberal' and 'conservative' have created mass confusion in modern politics; I contend it was done intentionally.
So, then, why doesn't Tesla just franchise out the dealerships in Ohio?
Because the only people who are even potential franchisees are already franchisees of manufacturers of gasoline cars. And their owners have a very public anti-electric stance. Elon Musk knows damn well that if he leaves Tesla sales in their tender hands, he'll never move a single vehicle.
In theory, some Random Rich Guy would bid for the franchise, right? Doesn't work that way. Guys who are already rich in one particular industry tend to stay put in that industry, under the (usually correct) assumption that they don't understand other industries well enough to make money in them. So the pool of potential franchisees is much more severely limited than one might assume. That limitation is too hazardous to the eventual success of Tesla motors for Mr. Musk to risk it. If nothing else, he's good at learning from history.
Tesla could subsidize it. Example:
I offer to "open" a franchise in my state; Tesla offers a "loan" that covers all the initial expenses, perhaps 6 months into the future (at least, long enough to establish a presence and get sales moving in the state). Problem solved.
It might not be the conventional way of doing business, but I figure that's something Tesla's major investors would be able to appreciate. Hell, if I lived in Ohio I'd be CC-ing this post to Tesla, just to put the thought in their heads.
"Ah but that will never happen to me" - The Mainstream American Mentality.
Source - American, living in U.S. of America.
Alternate source: the comment section of pretty much every American mainstream media outlet, save Slashdot.
I like to "joke" that I visit the Yahoo forums just so I can lose faith in humanity.
So, from what I can tell, the main problem with this Ohio law (aside the fact it's an obvious, blatantly stupid attempt to stop one particular company from selling in the state) is that they want to prevent auto manufacturers from owning dealerships, right?
So, then, why doesn't Tesla just franchise out the dealerships in Ohio?
You can always tell a liar by comparing the actions to the words. Words aside, Republicrats/Democans have always been the party of big centralized government.
FTFY.
There's no notable difference between the two sides of the One Party, rhetoric aside.
The "news" is that glassholes' data is safe,
So she thinks. But there's no guarantee that the finder didn't plug it into his laptop and download a copy of all her data before beginning his search for the rightful owner.
More than likely the finder did just that - at least it's what I'd do for the simple reason that browsing media on my hard disk is so much faster than browsing it over a slow USB link from a slow SD-card or similar media. The real question would be, did he delete the data afterwards?
For me it depends on the data. I do electronic cleaning for a local pawn shop chain, and although most of the time I don't find anything worth saving, occasionally I find stuff on old laptops and cameras is worth keeping, like when I found a treasure trove of Iraq combat videos on a broken laptop someone just gave to the store. Other times, I've found evidence of serious criminal activity, and had to save the data so I could turn it over to law enforcement.
As an aside, if you're going to pawn your laptop, then for the love of Torvalds, wipe that sucker first! That is, unless you want some asshole like me rifling through the naked pictures your hot-ass girlfriend sent while you were overseas, or turning you over the cops if you happen to be a pedo.
I'm right and you're wrong, so eat shit and die.
Cute; did a kindergartner teach you that, or did you manage to come up with it all on your own?
Give it a rest, troll - you're two weeks too late for anyone but you to give a fuck.
He had some Bitcoin stored on his glass. That's the real story.
Wasn't mentioned in TFA, although if that were the case I would consider it a cautionary tale against keeping important and unique data on easily lost/stolen devices.
Have to get out of your wealthy tech cocoon and see the real world.
Come again? Not sure what point you're trying to make here...