That's for the $tate of California. $6500 per year + books (about another $2k max).
The "living with a parent or relative" part is whacked. That 4k should be around zero (I wouldn't charge my kid rent while going to school) and you can dramatically lower the cost of books with a little effort.
Go to a CC for the first two years at next to no cost and you end up spending about $15k-$20k for a 4 year degree. Easily doable with a full time or even part time job or "loan it" if you can't find work while a student. This is not rocket science. Don't go for an education that will cost you more than you can expect to afford by conservative job market estimates.
"Everyone here does seem quick to say "Oh just do an ROI calculation on college and don't take it for granted you should go" without recalling that for decades now we've pretty much shoved the idea that "if you don't go to college you're a complete shit and failure of a human being (what are you gonna do, flip burgers? Because people who flip burgers are subhuman shit after all)" down everyone's throats, and most people don't want to be thought of as complete shit."
Over simplify much?
Everyone SHOULD be quick to say "do a ROI calc" as well as decide if they should even go to college. A plumber doesn't need a degree and they generally get paid exceptionally well. Also part of that calculation should include expected income in their chosen field. If they can expect to make $20k-$30k, maybe they shouldn't be taking out $50k in loans. Or maybe they should go to a less expensive school. I'm sorry -- if the market is saturated with art history majors, you may end up flipping burgers to pay off your loans. Hell, the market is saturated with lawyers right now. I know a few who are working as paralegals and are happy to have the work.
I have little sympathy for someone who took out $100k in student loans they can't pay back because they can't find work. I have a ton of sympathy for someone who took out less than $20k in loans and are struggling.
I can type fast. 100+ wpm when I get going. The problem is that I don't need to THINK about it. It comes in my ear or eyes then my fingers move and it 'happens'. I can actually hold a conversation about a completely different topic while I type. Taking notes by pen/paper is different in that I need to process what's being said before it hits my hand (using different parts of the brain, as you say). I actually clarify 'on the fly' or add additional notes to ask questions later.
I work in IT -- and we ALL have note pads when going to meetings or on teleconfs. It just works better. Plus I can draw sketches/flow-charts and get immediate feedback.
And you know that GZ "badgered" in to a fight how?
You are making stuff up. There's nothing to suggest GZ badged anyone. And as the defense made clear, TM had 4 minutes to move less than a football field away to his home if he felt threatened. Where was he those 4 minutes? While GZ was on the phone with 911?
Oh, and while GZ was on the phone with 911, could you hear him badgering TM? I don't think so -- unless you have some hidden and secret "unedited" 911 call...
"DOMA was passed by Congress in 1996 in reaction to the possibility that Hawaii would make same-sex marriages legal following a state supreme court ruling on the subject. Hawaii never did because the issue was rendered moot via a state constitutional amendment. Congress decided to guard against future attempts by other states to do the same thing Hawaii had come close to doing. "
Gotta say, you are right. I mixed up the dates on two key decisions. My bad.
Still doesn't change the base of my argument that the federal government should not be involved with marriage at all (including DOMA).
"Your country wasn't able to accept the abolition of slavery without polarisation, was Lincoln wrong? Some things are wrong, cannot be supported and should not be ignored because many other people don't agree. Discriminating against people because of their sexual beliefs is one such issue."
Are you honestly comparing the ability to marry the same gender to slavery? Take a step back, breath in, hold it and count to 10.
Now, lets talk honestly. The civil war cost us dearly. 600k-750k of our brothers, fathers and sons who fought NOT to rid the country of slavery, but to fight against or for the break up of the Union. The issue of slavery was a major issue leading to the stand off, but it was not the ONLY cause.
Now the question is "Was it worth it". *I* would say hell yes in a heart beat as it *DID* bring about the end of slavery 10, maybe 20 years sooner than otherwise. Had it happened earlier, I doubt a Civil War would have been effective in keeping the union together so perhaps the time was about right.
We're hearing talks of succession from folks you can't immediately write off as crack-pots. Granted, it's still VERY early, highly unlikely and impossible to predict, but it's out there. I ask the question is federally mandated same-sex marriage worth it? I say no. Let the states deal with it and states which don't permit it would be forced to at least recognize it. Live in TX or CA (assuming they find someone with "standing" to argue prop 8) and want to get married? Go to Vegas or Boston. NV was known for the "quicky" divorce for the same reasons. We've already fought for union once and the price was dear. Is *THIS* really on the same level as slavery? I say firmly and with conviction, "NO!".
"The anti-gay factions were the ones who got the Fed into it"
I don't disagree that DOMA was bad. The fed CANNOT ignore the good faith and credit clause of the constitution. If a state says that every state must honor contracts of the others.
However you seem to be forgetting that DOMA was a REACTION to something. It didn't come out of the blue. I wonder what that was... Oh yeah... the over-reaching decisions of SCOTUS... Tell me that the SCOTUS isn't part of the fed with a straight face and that DOMA wasn't a reaction to this. You have an interesting "view" of history. Accuracy doesn't appear to play a role.
"If the Fed were staying out of it, they would have recognized any marriage which the state recognized (this is how it traditionally worked - the states defined marriage)."
I don't disagree with this, either. In my opinion, this is as it should be. Leave it to the states -- until the constitution can be amended.
"I'd love to see where in our constitution it spells out exactly which rights straight people have, and which ones gay people have. Nobody is "magically" finding rights. It's spelled out in black and white, "all men are created equal". It can't get any plainer than that."
I'd love to see where in our constitution it says "all men are created equal". I really don't need to read further than this to know that you've not read the constitution or the papers by the framers supporting it. But at least you're familiar with catch phrases from the DoI. It appears our tax dollars weren't ENTIRELY wasted on your education.
"*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government deny gay people their rights, merely because *their* religious beliefs say that gay people are sinners."
I, on the other hand, find it more telling that people feel the need for the federal government to "magically" find rights where none existed before and ignore the actual PROCESS our framers put in place to amend the constitution. There are REASONS why its difficult to change the constitution -- one of which is that wild changes on emotional whims can rip this country apart.
Being against homosexual marriage is *NOT* unusual or extreme by definition. In all 50 states, only about 7 or 8 allow it, and only 2 were by electoral choice of their respective peoples. Even the left-coast liberal state of California (who voted in President Obama for a second term by a wide margin) ALSO passed Prop 8 amending the constitution of the State of CA preventing homosexual marriage.
People think that EXTREME? If so, to paraphrase a famous swordsman, "I do not think it means what you think it means".
When our country is READY to accept this issue without further polarizing us, it will pass an amendment. Until then, the fed should REALLY stay out of it.
So what you are saying is something along the lines of "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression."
"The secularists and minorities such as the Copts, are never going to accept Sharia being rammed down their throats. So where is the middle ground?"
Sometimes one must open the flood gates to allow the water level to lower to something that wont break/overflow the dam. Maybe the need a "bloody" revolution. I hope they don't, but they just might.
My wife (a Syrian Christian) says that people respect STRENGTH, not compromise over there. A willingness to compromise is seen as weakness. They are less concerned that someone gets picked up and torched by the Government than being able to buy food and walk the streets safely.
As an American, these are alien concepts for me. Our Constitution is a compromise document (3/5ths of a person?). Our strength has traditionally come from our willingness to compromise. Our sense of safety comes from the checks/balances in our system that should PREVENT our government from whisking me away.
I don't think there are just two problems with this. There are multiple problems with this.
It sounds like they are pulling ALL call data and warehousing it to mine via some secret warrant. The problem is that data now exists and is accessible to the government WITHOUT a warrant of someone decides to go "rogue". It's a lot more difficult to mine that data without a warrant if it were still in the hands of the original vendors.
The uses may be noble now and there may have been horrible things prevented with this system. That doesn't mean that it won't be abused by some future government. One of the things our Constitution provides for is a way to "survive" poor or malicious leaders until the next round of elections.
"In this country, there is a formal legal process for determining whether or not a person has committed a crime. It doesn't involve exchanges in the mainstream media."
That's not exactly an accurate representation of whats being discussed. And yes -- there is a presumption of innocence and a LEGAL process to resolve this.
However, Snowden has already leaked classified information which is a crime. You can safely call him a criminal and a lawbreaker. It's not that he's claiming he did something without veracity (like claiming to have been the Hillside Strangler or something silly). It's just semantics. If, however, someone has a dog in this race and feel the need to sugar coat the truth, they are more than welcome to don their rose-colored glasses.
That said, I think Snowden had good intentions and I think there will be good results. However, there's already a whistle blower mechanism (even for classified cases) that protects people like Snowden from retaliation or prosecution. He completely blew it off and yelped "Hey! Look at this stuff!". I have some problem with this.
It's possible to have a problem with the way Snowden conducted himself AND agree with him that the government has too much information available that's beyond constitutional.
"So seriously. How exactly is this stuff really all that new to anyone? This is more like "hey, you remember that scandal everyone forgot about? Well, it's true.""
Yup. Doesn't matter if it's not new. What matters is if it's constitutional. Sometimes it takes a few "scandals" to get people to demand a change.
"QED IFF Snowden is telling truth and Alexander and Rogers are lying."
I don't disagree with that statement. Your citation below even notes that Sen. Wyden believes the Director of National Intelligence (Clapper) gave a straight answer. And if you followed his (Clappers) attempts to 'clarify' himself, he just dug a deeper hole.
Wasn't she the agent who's ID was leaked by Richard Armitage by accident to both Bob Woodward and Robert Novak because he was unaware of her covert status?
Then again -- maybe their was some tin-hattery afoot here. More reason to keep the PUBLIC'S private information from the government if it has so much trouble keeping it's own secrets.
Good point. The problem is that Snowden actually HAS proof to back up his claim (. Should have added that.
>Snowden says he did "X". Snowden releases information that verifies he did "X". "X" is against the law. Snowden therefore broke the law. Snowden is a lawbreaker. QED.
Sorry -- I don't play to the lowest common denominator.
"We get the government we deserve" is a common saying because it's who we vote in office. I can't make people not be stupid -- but I can speak the truth as I know it.
If the enough of the public is that stupid we deserve to be fooled.
Also, are you aware this is a legal process in place for whistle blowers? Which is how whistle blowers qualify for legal protection (even for classified cases). And that Snowden blew that off entirely. Didn't even try.
I've said this before -- I think nothing but good will come of this, but the law is the law and Snowden broke the law.
"just saying you're a lawbreaker doesn't make you one though."
You are right.
Snowden says he did "X". "X" is against the law. Snowden therefore broke the law. Snowden is a lawbreaker. QED.
^^^THAT, however, makes him one.^^^
Remember his interview earlier in the week:
"A: "I could not do this without accepting the risk of prison. You can't come up against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk. If they want to get you, over time they will."
He may call the government hypocrites in relation to a crime, but even HE realizes a crime was committed as he acknowledges the risk of prison.
Words have meaning. Don't change them to suit "feelings" or "outrage". Nothing good ever comes from that.
No no no. We're talking language here and he's admitted to breaking laws. He is not a convict. He is a criminal. He is what he is. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done what he did and I can see nothing but good come of it. Further --even if he IS convicted in the future (failure of jury nullification), I cant help but think he'll get some type of pardon. But calling a skunk a flower only works in Bambi.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.csun.edu/financialaid/basics/cost.php
That's for the $tate of California. $6500 per year + books (about another $2k max).
The "living with a parent or relative" part is whacked. That 4k should be around zero (I wouldn't charge my kid rent while going to school) and you can dramatically lower the cost of books with a little effort.
Go to a CC for the first two years at next to no cost and you end up spending about $15k-$20k for a 4 year degree. Easily doable with a full time or even part time job or "loan it" if you can't find work while a student. This is not rocket science. Don't go for an education that will cost you more than you can expect to afford by conservative job market estimates.
"Everyone here does seem quick to say "Oh just do an ROI calculation on college and don't take it for granted you should go" without recalling that for decades now we've pretty much shoved the idea that "if you don't go to college you're a complete shit and failure of a human being (what are you gonna do, flip burgers? Because people who flip burgers are subhuman shit after all)" down everyone's throats, and most people don't want to be thought of as complete shit."
Over simplify much?
Everyone SHOULD be quick to say "do a ROI calc" as well as decide if they should even go to college. A plumber doesn't need a degree and they generally get paid exceptionally well. Also part of that calculation should include expected income in their chosen field. If they can expect to make $20k-$30k, maybe they shouldn't be taking out $50k in loans. Or maybe they should go to a less expensive school. I'm sorry -- if the market is saturated with art history majors, you may end up flipping burgers to pay off your loans. Hell, the market is saturated with lawyers right now. I know a few who are working as paralegals and are happy to have the work.
I have little sympathy for someone who took out $100k in student loans they can't pay back because they can't find work. I have a ton of sympathy for someone who took out less than $20k in loans and are struggling.
I can type fast. 100+ wpm when I get going. The problem is that I don't need to THINK about it. It comes in my ear or eyes then my fingers move and it 'happens'. I can actually hold a conversation about a completely different topic while I type. Taking notes by pen/paper is different in that I need to process what's being said before it hits my hand (using different parts of the brain, as you say). I actually clarify 'on the fly' or add additional notes to ask questions later.
I work in IT -- and we ALL have note pads when going to meetings or on teleconfs. It just works better. Plus I can draw sketches/flow-charts and get immediate feedback.
And you know that GZ "badgered" in to a fight how?
You are making stuff up. There's nothing to suggest GZ badged anyone. And as the defense made clear, TM had 4 minutes to move less than a football field away to his home if he felt threatened. Where was he those 4 minutes? While GZ was on the phone with 911?
Oh, and while GZ was on the phone with 911, could you hear him badgering TM? I don't think so -- unless you have some hidden and secret "unedited" 911 call...
"DOMA was passed by Congress in 1996 in reaction to the possibility that Hawaii would make same-sex marriages legal following a state supreme court ruling on the subject. Hawaii never did because the issue was rendered moot via a state constitutional amendment. Congress decided to guard against future attempts by other states to do the same thing Hawaii had come close to doing. "
Gotta say, you are right. I mixed up the dates on two key decisions. My bad.
Still doesn't change the base of my argument that the federal government should not be involved with marriage at all (including DOMA).
"Your country wasn't able to accept the abolition of slavery without polarisation, was Lincoln wrong? Some things are wrong, cannot be supported and should not be ignored because many other people don't agree. Discriminating against people because of their sexual beliefs is one such issue."
Are you honestly comparing the ability to marry the same gender to slavery? Take a step back, breath in, hold it and count to 10.
Now, lets talk honestly. The civil war cost us dearly. 600k-750k of our brothers, fathers and sons who fought NOT to rid the country of slavery, but to fight against or for the break up of the Union. The issue of slavery was a major issue leading to the stand off, but it was not the ONLY cause.
Now the question is "Was it worth it". *I* would say hell yes in a heart beat as it *DID* bring about the end of slavery 10, maybe 20 years sooner than otherwise. Had it happened earlier, I doubt a Civil War would have been effective in keeping the union together so perhaps the time was about right.
We're hearing talks of succession from folks you can't immediately write off as crack-pots. Granted, it's still VERY early, highly unlikely and impossible to predict, but it's out there. I ask the question is federally mandated same-sex marriage worth it? I say no. Let the states deal with it and states which don't permit it would be forced to at least recognize it. Live in TX or CA (assuming they find someone with "standing" to argue prop 8) and want to get married? Go to Vegas or Boston. NV was known for the "quicky" divorce for the same reasons. We've already fought for union once and the price was dear. Is *THIS* really on the same level as slavery? I say firmly and with conviction, "NO!".
"The anti-gay factions were the ones who got the Fed into it"
I don't disagree that DOMA was bad. The fed CANNOT ignore the good faith and credit clause of the constitution. If a state says that every state must honor contracts of the others.
However you seem to be forgetting that DOMA was a REACTION to something. It didn't come out of the blue. I wonder what that was... Oh yeah... the over-reaching decisions of SCOTUS... Tell me that the SCOTUS isn't part of the fed with a straight face and that DOMA wasn't a reaction to this. You have an interesting "view" of history. Accuracy doesn't appear to play a role.
"If the Fed were staying out of it, they would have recognized any marriage which the state recognized (this is how it traditionally worked - the states defined marriage)."
I don't disagree with this, either. In my opinion, this is as it should be. Leave it to the states -- until the constitution can be amended.
"I'd love to see where in our constitution it spells out exactly which rights straight people have, and which ones gay people have. Nobody is "magically" finding rights. It's spelled out in black and white, "all men are created equal". It can't get any plainer than that."
I'd love to see where in our constitution it says "all men are created equal". I really don't need to read further than this to know that you've not read the constitution or the papers by the framers supporting it. But at least you're familiar with catch phrases from the DoI. It appears our tax dollars weren't ENTIRELY wasted on your education.
"*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government deny gay people their rights, merely because *their* religious beliefs say that gay people are sinners."
I, on the other hand, find it more telling that people feel the need for the federal government to "magically" find rights where none existed before and ignore the actual PROCESS our framers put in place to amend the constitution. There are REASONS why its difficult to change the constitution -- one of which is that wild changes on emotional whims can rip this country apart.
Being against homosexual marriage is *NOT* unusual or extreme by definition. In all 50 states, only about 7 or 8 allow it, and only 2 were by electoral choice of their respective peoples. Even the left-coast liberal state of California (who voted in President Obama for a second term by a wide margin) ALSO passed Prop 8 amending the constitution of the State of CA preventing homosexual marriage.
People think that EXTREME? If so, to paraphrase a famous swordsman, "I do not think it means what you think it means".
When our country is READY to accept this issue without further polarizing us, it will pass an amendment. Until then, the fed should REALLY stay out of it.
So what you are saying is something along the lines of "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression."
Yay Whitney V California!
"The secularists and minorities such as the Copts, are never going to accept Sharia being rammed down their throats. So where is the middle ground?"
Sometimes one must open the flood gates to allow the water level to lower to something that wont break/overflow the dam. Maybe the need a "bloody" revolution. I hope they don't, but they just might.
My wife (a Syrian Christian) says that people respect STRENGTH, not compromise over there. A willingness to compromise is seen as weakness. They are less concerned that someone gets picked up and torched by the Government than being able to buy food and walk the streets safely.
As an American, these are alien concepts for me. Our Constitution is a compromise document (3/5ths of a person?). Our strength has traditionally come from our willingness to compromise. Our sense of safety comes from the checks/balances in our system that should PREVENT our government from whisking me away.
I don't think there are just two problems with this. There are multiple problems with this.
It sounds like they are pulling ALL call data and warehousing it to mine via some secret warrant. The problem is that data now exists and is accessible to the government WITHOUT a warrant of someone decides to go "rogue". It's a lot more difficult to mine that data without a warrant if it were still in the hands of the original vendors.
The uses may be noble now and there may have been horrible things prevented with this system. That doesn't mean that it won't be abused by some future government. One of the things our Constitution provides for is a way to "survive" poor or malicious leaders until the next round of elections.
"In this country, there is a formal legal process for determining whether or not a person has committed a crime. It doesn't involve exchanges in the mainstream media."
That's not exactly an accurate representation of whats being discussed. And yes -- there is a presumption of innocence and a LEGAL process to resolve this.
However, Snowden has already leaked classified information which is a crime. You can safely call him a criminal and a lawbreaker. It's not that he's claiming he did something without veracity (like claiming to have been the Hillside Strangler or something silly). It's just semantics. If, however, someone has a dog in this race and feel the need to sugar coat the truth, they are more than welcome to don their rose-colored glasses.
That said, I think Snowden had good intentions and I think there will be good results. However, there's already a whistle blower mechanism (even for classified cases) that protects people like Snowden from retaliation or prosecution. He completely blew it off and yelped "Hey! Look at this stuff!". I have some problem with this.
It's possible to have a problem with the way Snowden conducted himself AND agree with him that the government has too much information available that's beyond constitutional.
"Oh for god's sake."
Yup.
"So seriously. How exactly is this stuff really all that new to anyone? This is more like "hey, you remember that scandal everyone forgot about? Well, it's true.""
Yup. Doesn't matter if it's not new. What matters is if it's constitutional. Sometimes it takes a few "scandals" to get people to demand a change.
"QED IFF Snowden is telling truth and Alexander and Rogers are lying."
I don't disagree with that statement. Your citation below even notes that Sen. Wyden believes the Director of National Intelligence (Clapper) gave a straight answer. And if you followed his (Clappers) attempts to 'clarify' himself, he just dug a deeper hole.
The article says no such thing. Or you are reading too much in to it.
He has already released classified information and that is a crime. Maybe he is liking about SOME of the stuff he has -- maybe he's not.
Wasn't she the agent who's ID was leaked by Richard Armitage by accident to both Bob Woodward and Robert Novak because he was unaware of her covert status?
Then again -- maybe their was some tin-hattery afoot here. More reason to keep the PUBLIC'S private information from the government if it has so much trouble keeping it's own secrets.
Good point. The problem is that Snowden actually HAS proof to back up his claim (. Should have added that.
>Snowden says he did "X". Snowden releases information that verifies he did "X". "X" is against the law. Snowden therefore broke the law. Snowden is a lawbreaker. QED.
Works now.
They are. Not as separate as they once were -- but they are.
It's the opposition party that helps keep the party in power in check. It's why we have supra majority rules in place as well.
Sorry -- I don't play to the lowest common denominator.
"We get the government we deserve" is a common saying because it's who we vote in office. I can't make people not be stupid -- but I can speak the truth as I know it.
If the enough of the public is that stupid we deserve to be fooled.
Also, are you aware this is a legal process in place for whistle blowers? Which is how whistle blowers qualify for legal protection (even for classified cases). And that Snowden blew that off entirely. Didn't even try.
I've said this before -- I think nothing but good will come of this, but the law is the law and Snowden broke the law.
"just saying you're a lawbreaker doesn't make you one though."
You are right.
Snowden says he did "X". "X" is against the law. Snowden therefore broke the law. Snowden is a lawbreaker. QED.
^^^THAT, however, makes him one.^^^
Remember his interview earlier in the week:
"A: "I could not do this without accepting the risk of prison. You can't come up against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk. If they want to get you, over time they will."
He may call the government hypocrites in relation to a crime, but even HE realizes a crime was committed as he acknowledges the risk of prison.
Words have meaning. Don't change them to suit "feelings" or "outrage". Nothing good ever comes from that.
No no no. We're talking language here and he's admitted to breaking laws. He is not a convict. He is a criminal. He is what he is. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done what he did and I can see nothing but good come of it. Further --even if he IS convicted in the future (failure of jury nullification), I cant help but think he'll get some type of pardon. But calling a skunk a flower only works in Bambi.
Really? REALLY???
One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.
From your own FLIPPING citation. Did you bother even READING it?
How about (this)
1: one who has committed a crime
And look up CRIME
1. an action that is deemed injurious to the public welfare and is legally prohibited. "
How about Oxford:
noun
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law
Me: "The house is red"
You: "Even if it has no back yard?"
Frosty, I've no idea how to diagram your non sequitur in to the tree of this discussion.