You seem to think that college is the ONLY way to make a decent living. It's not. Not by a long shot. It's still entirely possible to work your way up from the figurative mail room. You may run into a wall at some point fairly high up the ladder, but by then you can probably pay for college in cash.
Or you can work one of any number of "dirty" jobs that pay well just because they suck, either because they're dangerous, or because they're just shitty (sometimes literally) jobs.
Or you can go to a trade school. Become an electrician, a plumber, a carpenter or any one of dozens of jobs like those. Here's a little secret - for every person that goes to college because, like you, they think they need to, that's one more trade position that opens up, driving up demand for workers and driving up wages for those increasingly rare workers.
So yeah, a little personal responsibility would go a long way towards averting both this and the home loan crisis. People need to do their own research and not just listen to whomever is selling you something. If you expect someone to do their research when buying a vacuum, why not when buying a car? A house? An education?
The reason you see those commercials probably isn't so much that the college as a whole is targeting the been-out-of-school crowd, but because that's the crowd that needs convincing. High school grads are already convinced to go to college, so they're already actively seeking out the colleges and don't need to be advertised to. There are predatory colleges out there, but it's not *all* of them like many people seem to think.
I agree that the main failing is in high school. There's too much focus on "preparation for college" - which, as it turns out, has nothing to do with college - and absolutely nothing about life skills, particularly financial. Perhaps if we revamped high school, we wouldn't have so much trouble with college loans in the first place, and we'd have skills to help with all of those other pesky financial situations as an adult.
Our high school economics class did have us balance a checkbook... a skill I've never actually needed in this electronic age. My state college, however, had a mandatory one-credit class that was basically a "life skills" class - loans, mortgages, credit cards, buying a car, buying a house, family finance planning, etc. Unfortunately, only the IT majors were required to take it. That shit really should have been covered in high school.
I can't speak for the politics, but a lot of state schools spend way too much money on extracurriculars, such as sports. For the very small number of major state colleges that do earn a profit off sports, that's ok. However, for community colleges and most smaller four year state schools, sports is a money pit. The problem isn't so much cutting funding as it is cutting funding in the wrong places. Not long after I graduated, the small ag/tech school I went to spent $5 million on revamping the football stadium. The end result looks like a diseased wart, and it somehow hasn't helped our team, which continues it's success ratio of winning one or two games a year. Either way, state schools are still cheaper than private schools, and many offer decent scholarship packages as well.
Holy shit does University of California have a horrid website. It's like Geocities had a bastard child with sulphuric acid and jizzed it in my eyes.
That said, California is the gold standard for the government fucking things up, which it looks like they did for tuition too. She may want to consider an out-of-state school that offers low out-of-state tuition - an increasing number of them charge the same as in-state residents - or an online school.
As for room and board, that's a trickier comparison. If she's living on her own, you'd have to compare it to the cost of renting an apartment and buying your own food. Around here, that's be around $8000/yr, but that can easily be $20,000 depending on where you are. The odd thing I noticed is that University of California estimates $14,000 room and board on-campus and $9,300 off-campus. That's a 50% increase! It's like they're not even trying to look like a good deal.
What I find disturbing is that at age 18, we're allowed to go to war, vote, enter contracts and do just about anything (except drink alcohol... that's another weird one). Yet, we still seem to treat these same 18-year-olds like children when it comes to them understanding the loans that they voluntarily enter into. I never found loans to be a difficult concept. You borrow money now, you pay it back later with interest.
If you don't want massive loans, pick a state school. There's a lot of state schools that offer in-state tuition rates to out-of-state students, in addition to your own state's schools. There are a lot of choices without picking private for-profit schools. Now, there might be some more niche degrees only offered by a limited number of colleges, but those are much, much more fewer than the number of students who claim to be victimized by student loans.
I'm not saying that *no* colleges have predatory loan practices, or that *no* students are victimized. I'm just saying that a great deal of students who claim to be victimized are experiencing something closer to buyer's remorse at the first major, adult decision. Some of the blame for the student loan situation *should* sit with the students who entered into these agreements.
"a sun" and "The Sun" mean two different things. "A sun" is essentially the same as saying "A star". However, "The Sun" is clearly identifying a particular star - the one we orbit around. Although "the" is a big indicator, the fact that it's a proper noun (note the capitalization) is what really gives it away. Sol is another name for the Sun, just like Terra is another name for Earth. Similarly, "a moon" could mean any of dozens of moons, but "the Moon" specifically refers to Earth's moon, also known as Luna.
A lot of physicists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, have said that "Dark Matter" is actually a pretty poor name for the phenomenon because it's almost certainly not just some exotic form of matter, but something else entirely that's at work. However, like many things in science, the early name was catchy enough to stick in spite of being a crappy descriptor.
Planets are made of matter, matter is a gravity source. If that matter pulls together, but fails to ignite, you have a gas giant instead of a star. The same could happen with rocky planets. Obviously, smaller planets would take much longer to form on their own, but it could happen. And even more likely is that the planets form inside of a star system, but are ejected rather than settling into a stable orbit.
Not a physicist, but there's a few reasons. First and foremost, I believe there simply aren't enough wandering planets to explain it. Dark matter accounts for something like 90% of the gravitational effects that we see. If wandering planets were to blame for that much mass, they would definitely be much, much more noticeable even without giving off light like stars. Secondly, wandering planets simply don't fit the bill for what we're seeing in regards to gravity - if it were all planets, we would be seeing much different galactic formations.
Nah, the Pope just has his priorities in order. "Argue about shit that doesn't matter a whole lot to the church or God" is waaay down the Pope's list, but waaay up the list of many people who just like to argue because it gives them a sense of superiority.
" How exactly is is he then worthy of worship or awe from us?"
Throughout history, the more technologically advanced societies tend to think they deserve awe, and in some cases outright worship, from the much more primitive tribes they encountered. Why should we think this kind of mindset is limited to humans? Why couldn't an alien species share the same philosophy or take it even further?
Many words have a separate legal definition. For example, insanity means something completely different in legal, medical and colloquial contexts. When talking about a legal matter, assume the legal definition is what is meant. And you won't find a legal definition in the Webster or Oxford dictionaries unless it's a word with no alternative meanings.
I disagree. I think a 54 year marriage is a success even if it ends in divorce. People change over time. After 54 years, both people have changed considerably and it's entirely possible to mutually agree that you're no longer married to the person you want to be.
However, people don't normally change all that much after only two years. So if you get divorced that quickly, then you probably lose.
"Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people.");"
"Whether you had a honeymoon (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon).""
Those two seem to be at odds with this one:
"How much you spent on the wedding (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.);"
Unless they mean that you should invite 200 people to a park wedding with no food, and then honeymoon in the alley behind Dunkin' Donuts to take advantage of their dumpster?
My understanding is that, with very few (and increasingly fewer with each new version) exceptions, anything you can do in VB.NET, you can do in C#. Does Office only understand VB.NET?
I had to look up some of it, but knowing the internal version number can be seriously helpful if you're writing a script that needs to do different things depending on what version of Windows it's running on (such as looking for "C:\Users\Public\Public Desktop\" vs "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\", as a simple example). Getting that version number from the command line is as easy as "ver"
What part is speculation? The internal version number isn't exactly a secret. Open up a commandline and type "ver". There's a lot of other things about Windows that are well known whether or not you have the source.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to think that college is the ONLY way to make a decent living. It's not. Not by a long shot. It's still entirely possible to work your way up from the figurative mail room. You may run into a wall at some point fairly high up the ladder, but by then you can probably pay for college in cash.
Or you can work one of any number of "dirty" jobs that pay well just because they suck, either because they're dangerous, or because they're just shitty (sometimes literally) jobs.
Or you can go to a trade school. Become an electrician, a plumber, a carpenter or any one of dozens of jobs like those. Here's a little secret - for every person that goes to college because, like you, they think they need to, that's one more trade position that opens up, driving up demand for workers and driving up wages for those increasingly rare workers.
So yeah, a little personal responsibility would go a long way towards averting both this and the home loan crisis. People need to do their own research and not just listen to whomever is selling you something. If you expect someone to do their research when buying a vacuum, why not when buying a car? A house? An education?
The reason you see those commercials probably isn't so much that the college as a whole is targeting the been-out-of-school crowd, but because that's the crowd that needs convincing. High school grads are already convinced to go to college, so they're already actively seeking out the colleges and don't need to be advertised to. There are predatory colleges out there, but it's not *all* of them like many people seem to think.
I agree that the main failing is in high school. There's too much focus on "preparation for college" - which, as it turns out, has nothing to do with college - and absolutely nothing about life skills, particularly financial. Perhaps if we revamped high school, we wouldn't have so much trouble with college loans in the first place, and we'd have skills to help with all of those other pesky financial situations as an adult.
Our high school economics class did have us balance a checkbook... a skill I've never actually needed in this electronic age. My state college, however, had a mandatory one-credit class that was basically a "life skills" class - loans, mortgages, credit cards, buying a car, buying a house, family finance planning, etc. Unfortunately, only the IT majors were required to take it. That shit really should have been covered in high school.
I can't speak for the politics, but a lot of state schools spend way too much money on extracurriculars, such as sports. For the very small number of major state colleges that do earn a profit off sports, that's ok. However, for community colleges and most smaller four year state schools, sports is a money pit. The problem isn't so much cutting funding as it is cutting funding in the wrong places. Not long after I graduated, the small ag/tech school I went to spent $5 million on revamping the football stadium. The end result looks like a diseased wart, and it somehow hasn't helped our team, which continues it's success ratio of winning one or two games a year. Either way, state schools are still cheaper than private schools, and many offer decent scholarship packages as well.
Holy shit does University of California have a horrid website. It's like Geocities had a bastard child with sulphuric acid and jizzed it in my eyes.
That said, California is the gold standard for the government fucking things up, which it looks like they did for tuition too. She may want to consider an out-of-state school that offers low out-of-state tuition - an increasing number of them charge the same as in-state residents - or an online school.
As for room and board, that's a trickier comparison. If she's living on her own, you'd have to compare it to the cost of renting an apartment and buying your own food. Around here, that's be around $8000/yr, but that can easily be $20,000 depending on where you are. The odd thing I noticed is that University of California estimates $14,000 room and board on-campus and $9,300 off-campus. That's a 50% increase! It's like they're not even trying to look like a good deal.
California sucks (well, the government).
What I find disturbing is that at age 18, we're allowed to go to war, vote, enter contracts and do just about anything (except drink alcohol... that's another weird one). Yet, we still seem to treat these same 18-year-olds like children when it comes to them understanding the loans that they voluntarily enter into. I never found loans to be a difficult concept. You borrow money now, you pay it back later with interest.
If you don't want massive loans, pick a state school. There's a lot of state schools that offer in-state tuition rates to out-of-state students, in addition to your own state's schools. There are a lot of choices without picking private for-profit schools. Now, there might be some more niche degrees only offered by a limited number of colleges, but those are much, much more fewer than the number of students who claim to be victimized by student loans.
I'm not saying that *no* colleges have predatory loan practices, or that *no* students are victimized. I'm just saying that a great deal of students who claim to be victimized are experiencing something closer to buyer's remorse at the first major, adult decision. Some of the blame for the student loan situation *should* sit with the students who entered into these agreements.
"a sun" and "The Sun" mean two different things. "A sun" is essentially the same as saying "A star". However, "The Sun" is clearly identifying a particular star - the one we orbit around. Although "the" is a big indicator, the fact that it's a proper noun (note the capitalization) is what really gives it away. Sol is another name for the Sun, just like Terra is another name for Earth. Similarly, "a moon" could mean any of dozens of moons, but "the Moon" specifically refers to Earth's moon, also known as Luna.
So what you're saying is that I'm a ... MACHO man? Maybe even a macho MACHO man?
Also, interesting reads.
It's pretty clear in the definition that "Sun" is a proper noun denoting, specifically, the star that we orbit.
A lot of physicists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, have said that "Dark Matter" is actually a pretty poor name for the phenomenon because it's almost certainly not just some exotic form of matter, but something else entirely that's at work. However, like many things in science, the early name was catchy enough to stick in spite of being a crappy descriptor.
By that definition, there's only 8 planets in the entire Universe. They may need to update their definition of planet, especially the first point.
Planets are made of matter, matter is a gravity source. If that matter pulls together, but fails to ignite, you have a gas giant instead of a star. The same could happen with rocky planets. Obviously, smaller planets would take much longer to form on their own, but it could happen. And even more likely is that the planets form inside of a star system, but are ejected rather than settling into a stable orbit.
Not a physicist, but there's a few reasons. First and foremost, I believe there simply aren't enough wandering planets to explain it. Dark matter accounts for something like 90% of the gravitational effects that we see. If wandering planets were to blame for that much mass, they would definitely be much, much more noticeable even without giving off light like stars. Secondly, wandering planets simply don't fit the bill for what we're seeing in regards to gravity - if it were all planets, we would be seeing much different galactic formations.
Nah, the Pope just has his priorities in order. "Argue about shit that doesn't matter a whole lot to the church or God" is waaay down the Pope's list, but waaay up the list of many people who just like to argue because it gives them a sense of superiority.
That's how we know Scientology is real. I'm not saying it's because of aliens, but.... aliens.
" How exactly is is he then worthy of worship or awe from us?"
Throughout history, the more technologically advanced societies tend to think they deserve awe, and in some cases outright worship, from the much more primitive tribes they encountered. Why should we think this kind of mindset is limited to humans? Why couldn't an alien species share the same philosophy or take it even further?
It's Linux, if it didn't come with spyware pre-installed, how would Grandma get it installed?
Many words have a separate legal definition. For example, insanity means something completely different in legal, medical and colloquial contexts. When talking about a legal matter, assume the legal definition is what is meant. And you won't find a legal definition in the Webster or Oxford dictionaries unless it's a word with no alternative meanings.
""Isn't this the definition of identity theft?""
Nope. It's identity eminent domain.
I disagree. I think a 54 year marriage is a success even if it ends in divorce. People change over time. After 54 years, both people have changed considerably and it's entirely possible to mutually agree that you're no longer married to the person you want to be.
However, people don't normally change all that much after only two years. So if you get divorced that quickly, then you probably lose.
"Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people.");"
"Whether you had a honeymoon (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon).""
Those two seem to be at odds with this one:
"How much you spent on the wedding (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.);"
Unless they mean that you should invite 200 people to a park wedding with no food, and then honeymoon in the alley behind Dunkin' Donuts to take advantage of their dumpster?
"It's way too handy and there's no alternative."
My understanding is that, with very few (and increasingly fewer with each new version) exceptions, anything you can do in VB.NET, you can do in C#. Does Office only understand VB.NET?
I had to look up some of it, but knowing the internal version number can be seriously helpful if you're writing a script that needs to do different things depending on what version of Windows it's running on (such as looking for "C:\Users\Public\Public Desktop\" vs "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\", as a simple example). Getting that version number from the command line is as easy as "ver"
What part is speculation? The internal version number isn't exactly a secret. Open up a commandline and type "ver". There's a lot of other things about Windows that are well known whether or not you have the source.