I am Englandsky, and I vant to say zat he is a very good commrade. I nyet know about Russia, I am English, Russia is irrelevant in zis. As an Englishky I like ze Trump.
No, he's itching for a confrontation with China which is worse- because unless we could kill them off quickly, we'd probably lose in a long-drawn out confrontation. Europe could probably defeat Russia without us.
Also, Chamberlain before WWII kept granting Hitler room to keep expanding, until it was too late and war was inevitable when he finally crossed the line against Poland. That's could potentially happen against Russia. He takes a chunk of Georgia, he takes a chunk of Ukraine, he takes a chunk of Latvia and Lithuania. Eventually we'll get pulled into confrontation if we let him keep gobbling up eastern Europe and turning a blind eye.
Placing sanctions and remaining firm is probably the only thing keeping us from war with Russia. Even Putin's lapdog will have to bite eventually if the whole country is saying "enough".
I dunno. Biden at least seemed harmless. There again, Biden is probably like Palpatine from Star Wars- he can probably shoot lightening out of his fingers too.
They did, but that formed an alternate time line when they did that. We're unfortunately stuck in the time line where the US starts a nuclear winter because someone in China called him fat.
The United States is three times the size of India.
If you're talking about population. India is by far the world's largest democracy. If you're talking about land size. Canada is the world's largest democracy. (unless you consider Russia democratic- then it is). If you're talking about weight of the average person then... yes... in that scenario, the US is the largest democracy.
I have first hand experience of this as an adult. My wife recently went back to school. She was still in university when we married, and when she moved to my town she lost half her credits... then got pregnant... and long story short- she's only just going back a decade later.
We were in the exact same boat. I earn enough not to qualify for most financial aid, but not enough to be able to afford to pay her tuition. This is for night school at a small local college.
Let's review this list of reasons: * divorce is inversely correlated with wealth - actually I doubt this is even true
By it's very nature, having one parent providing funds is going to make your less well off than having two parents providing funds. A lot of the kids growing up in poverty in this nation have several siblings each, all from different fathers, none of them involved in their life.
* probably working only one job - really, why is this? Not true where I live
Really? Doctors and Lawyers where you live are just as likely to have a night/weekend job to have to pay bills as the waitresses working at the Waffle House? That's interesting.
* Parents value an education more - actually, the ones that seem to value it most are recent immigrants
This is true, and children of immigrants tend to move up the socio-economic ladder too because of this. It's also true, if your parent went to University, he's more likely to push you to achieve the same compared to the parent who dropped out of beauty school.
* Neighborhood with higher property values means better funded schools - stupid way to fund schools, they should be funded according to need (check Finland, etc)
I agree completely. I think this is a big issue, and also a low hanging fruit that would be easy to fix.
I think the educations system needs a bit of a review. I'm sure Trump will fix that... cough.
He will set up Trump Elementary, Trump Middle, and Trump High schools all across this country- to help prepare students for Trump University.
If I cannot use my wealth to give my children an advantage what is the point of the wealth?
There is plenty of "point in wealth", I guarantee if they made equal schools across the country in poor and rich neighborhoods alike you wouldn't burn your pay-cheque and go live as a pauper.
Why work hard and earn money if someone who doesnt will get the same opportunities for their kid.
To set an example? For your own self-fulfillment?
If a kid is born to lazy parents- does that mean he deserves to be uneducated and have fewer opportunities? Just because his parents were lazy- or even stupid? If your child was swapped with another child at birth in the hospital, with that of the child of a poor family.
Would the child you lost suddenly have less worth to the world because now, he would grow up with different parents? Would he be less deserving of an education than if he had come home with you?
Ye society should try to keep the ladder open for social mobility as smart kids can be born to poor parents and we would not want to lose their potential but the kids of wealthy parents have already got a track record so their is nothing wrong in society giving an advantage to the chidren of successfull folks. If really smart poor kids will catch up in 2 or 3 generations.
I think it's admirable for a parent to want the best for their child to succeed. I'm certainly going to do the best I can for my children and my children as a result are going to be better off than those from poor families. I'm not saying you shouldn't use your wealth to give your children every advantage you can. It's your responsibility as a parent.
Conversely, the responsibility of society is to give equal opportunity to all people, irrespective of their parent's wealth. Society should try and even the playing field to give each child a chance to succeed, that's part of the logic behind public schools (the other part being, we're all better off living in a society of educated people rather than uneducated people).
Poor families grow up in poor neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods generate less property tax, which in most states is how schools are funded. Poorly funded schools get the worst teachers, the worst facilities, etc. Even if poor families had the same rate of two-parent households, or the same rate of enthusiasm for learning that richer families had. Even if the kids in poorer families got enough proper nutrition to develop brain growth (lack of nutrition strongly linked to lower intelligence). Even if their home lives were perfect- they still have the disadvantage of going to crappy schools where the other students aren't as focused, the teachers are worse, and the facilities are crap.
If a child is up for adoption with a rich family and a poor family. That same child with the same initial potential, will be much more likely to succeed if a rich family adopts him rather than if a poor family adopts him. Instead of studying law, he could be pushing meth.
Microsoft is an operating system developer, why are they producing games consoles? Apple is a personal computer producer, why are they making telephones? Google is a search engine, why are they making glasses? AT&T is a phone provider, why are they selling TV? Yahoo is a web portal, why are they giving your e-mail addresses to Russia?
All the tech companies are diversifying. Tech is a rapidly changing industry, if you stick with producing one thing, you will likely become obsolete.
If you buy an Amazon Car, you get Amazon Prime movies to watch whilst the car drives you around. If you tell it to drive to Walmart, it will take you to one of the new Amazon brick and Mortar stores instead, free of charge.
I used to enjoy when I was younger SciFi (before it was SyFy), when it was all Space 1999 reruns, and crappy horror movies you could laugh at.
Usually they were one-word titled horror movies, where that one word was an animal "Crocodile", "Piranha", "Skeeters" or "Bunnies" and invariably that one animal was trying to eat a group of stranded young adults. There was often a scruffy cop trying to help them too. It was good, in the background moview, where you wanted something on, but weren't really paying attention to it- except when the music suggested someone was about to be eaten in a very unrealistic way.
A single child family MIGHT be able to pull that off if they started saving years in advance. 2 or 3 kids and no, $100k a year, and you can't afford the school.
Having multiple kids knocks you down the opulence ladder a few pegs. You may have average family income, but you're essentially upper lower class/lower middle class.
I was in college about the same time, I have 5 different grants/scholarships, but because I went to an expensive private school (that at the time I thought meant a better education), I still had to work a 35hr/week job and me and my parents split the cost after grants/scholarships.
That was in the 90s. There is no way I could make up the cost by working a full-time job now. Cheap public schools charge as much as the crappy expensive private school I went to.
It has helped find jobs though. Employers are always impressed with the school on my resume. I daren't tell them, the computer science department in that university was awful and I learn't nothing of practical use there in 4 years.
Pseudocode? I haven't used it once since graduating, they insisted proper programmers spend more time writing pseudocode than real code. They also told me that the average programmer writes three lines of code a day, and the rest of the time is spent trying to find bugs. I don't think I could hold down a job if that were true.
And that doesn't include housing, which can also be $20k a semester.
For that kind of money you could buy a VERY large house off campus.
The university I went to required you stay ON campus for the first two years. I think the going rate then was $7000 a year for lodging. That was 20 years ago, I can easily believe that's $20k today with the rate Universities have increased what they charge.
My third year I moved off campus, paid less and had a lot more space. The kids who came the year after me though had to sign up for four years living on campus. They did build some pretty slick on-campus housing for those in their third and fourth years though.
I don't think anyone is saying everyone should go to college. What they're saying is, who your parents are, and how much money they have, should not decide whether you have the right to a quality education or not.
Top 1% must spend more time with their car in the shop then. Never understood why anyone would buy a car that is notorious for breaking down every few hundred miles.
Slashdot Mirror
I run Oprah, sometimes it gets bloated, but then it slims down again.
It's a bad day for 300million+ Americans. Some of them just don't know it yet.
He's hoping Putin doesn't release the pee videos now that it's too late for America to remove him.
Fortunately, the President doesn't really have as much power in real day to day life as people seem to think he does.
Congress holds the true power. At least for now.
I believe "God" is keyword for the CIA.
No, God is what Trump likes to call himself.
I am Englandsky, and I vant to say zat he is a very good commrade. I nyet know about Russia, I am English, Russia is irrelevant in zis. As an Englishky I like ze Trump.
That we know of.
No, he's itching for a confrontation with China which is worse- because unless we could kill them off quickly, we'd probably lose in a long-drawn out confrontation. Europe could probably defeat Russia without us.
Also, Chamberlain before WWII kept granting Hitler room to keep expanding, until it was too late and war was inevitable when he finally crossed the line against Poland. That's could potentially happen against Russia. He takes a chunk of Georgia, he takes a chunk of Ukraine, he takes a chunk of Latvia and Lithuania. Eventually we'll get pulled into confrontation if we let him keep gobbling up eastern Europe and turning a blind eye.
Placing sanctions and remaining firm is probably the only thing keeping us from war with Russia. Even Putin's lapdog will have to bite eventually if the whole country is saying "enough".
Not that hard, they die in water... all you need to do is take Trump out in the rain.
I dunno. Biden at least seemed harmless. There again, Biden is probably like Palpatine from Star Wars- he can probably shoot lightening out of his fingers too.
They did, but that formed an alternate time line when they did that. We're unfortunately stuck in the time line where the US starts a nuclear winter because someone in China called him fat.
The United States is three times the size of India.
If you're talking about population. India is by far the world's largest democracy.
If you're talking about land size. Canada is the world's largest democracy. (unless you consider Russia democratic- then it is).
If you're talking about weight of the average person then... yes... in that scenario, the US is the largest democracy.
And it's called "Meitu",
Please tell me that's not pronounced "Me Too" (although that would be the perfect name for a narcissistic selfie app.
I have first hand experience of this as an adult. My wife recently went back to school. She was still in university when we married, and when she moved to my town she lost half her credits... then got pregnant... and long story short- she's only just going back a decade later.
We were in the exact same boat. I earn enough not to qualify for most financial aid, but not enough to be able to afford to pay her tuition. This is for night school at a small local college.
Let's review this list of reasons:
* divorce is inversely correlated with wealth - actually I doubt this is even true
By it's very nature, having one parent providing funds is going to make your less well off than having two parents providing funds. A lot of the kids growing up in poverty in this nation have several siblings each, all from different fathers, none of them involved in their life.
* probably working only one job - really, why is this? Not true where I live
Really? Doctors and Lawyers where you live are just as likely to have a night/weekend job to have to pay bills as the waitresses working at the Waffle House? That's interesting.
* Parents value an education more - actually, the ones that seem to value it most are recent immigrants
This is true, and children of immigrants tend to move up the socio-economic ladder too because of this. It's also true, if your parent went to University, he's more likely to push you to achieve the same compared to the parent who dropped out of beauty school.
* Neighborhood with higher property values means better funded schools - stupid way to fund schools, they should be funded according to need (check Finland, etc)
I agree completely. I think this is a big issue, and also a low hanging fruit that would be easy to fix.
I think the educations system needs a bit of a review. I'm sure Trump will fix that ... cough.
He will set up Trump Elementary, Trump Middle, and Trump High schools all across this country- to help prepare students for Trump University.
If I cannot use my wealth to give my children an advantage what is the point of the wealth?
There is plenty of "point in wealth", I guarantee if they made equal schools across the country in poor and rich neighborhoods alike you wouldn't burn your pay-cheque and go live as a pauper.
Why work hard and earn money if someone who doesnt will get the same opportunities for their kid.
To set an example? For your own self-fulfillment?
If a kid is born to lazy parents- does that mean he deserves to be uneducated and have fewer opportunities? Just because his parents were lazy- or even stupid? If your child was swapped with another child at birth in the hospital, with that of the child of a poor family.
Would the child you lost suddenly have less worth to the world because now, he would grow up with different parents? Would he be less deserving of an education than if he had come home with you?
Ye society should try to keep the ladder open for social mobility as smart kids can be born to poor parents and we would not want to lose their potential but the kids of wealthy parents have already got a track record so their is nothing wrong in society giving an advantage to the chidren of successfull folks. If really smart poor kids will catch up in 2 or 3 generations.
I think it's admirable for a parent to want the best for their child to succeed. I'm certainly going to do the best I can for my children and my children as a result are going to be better off than those from poor families. I'm not saying you shouldn't use your wealth to give your children every advantage you can. It's your responsibility as a parent.
Conversely, the responsibility of society is to give equal opportunity to all people, irrespective of their parent's wealth. Society should try and even the playing field to give each child a chance to succeed, that's part of the logic behind public schools (the other part being, we're all better off living in a society of educated people rather than uneducated people).
Poor families grow up in poor neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods generate less property tax, which in most states is how schools are funded. Poorly funded schools get the worst teachers, the worst facilities, etc. Even if poor families had the same rate of two-parent households, or the same rate of enthusiasm for learning that richer families had. Even if the kids in poorer families got enough proper nutrition to develop brain growth (lack of nutrition strongly linked to lower intelligence). Even if their home lives were perfect- they still have the disadvantage of going to crappy schools where the other students aren't as focused, the teachers are worse, and the facilities are crap.
If a child is up for adoption with a rich family and a poor family. That same child with the same initial potential, will be much more likely to succeed if a rich family adopts him rather than if a poor family adopts him. Instead of studying law, he could be pushing meth.
Microsoft is an operating system developer, why are they producing games consoles?
Apple is a personal computer producer, why are they making telephones?
Google is a search engine, why are they making glasses?
AT&T is a phone provider, why are they selling TV?
Yahoo is a web portal, why are they giving your e-mail addresses to Russia?
All the tech companies are diversifying. Tech is a rapidly changing industry, if you stick with producing one thing, you will likely become obsolete.
Palm Pilot anyone?
If you buy an Amazon Car, you get Amazon Prime movies to watch whilst the car drives you around. If you tell it to drive to Walmart, it will take you to one of the new Amazon brick and Mortar stores instead, free of charge.
This just in - Humans with more resources are using those resources to make sure that they and their progeny have more resources. Story at 10!
There's nothing wrong with rich people wanting to give their own kids a leg-up in life and the best chance for future success that they can.
There's plenty wrong when society suppresses social mobility and makes success in life tied to how rich one's parents are.
I used to enjoy when I was younger SciFi (before it was SyFy), when it was all Space 1999 reruns, and crappy horror movies you could laugh at.
Usually they were one-word titled horror movies, where that one word was an animal "Crocodile", "Piranha", "Skeeters" or "Bunnies" and invariably that one animal was trying to eat a group of stranded young adults. There was often a scruffy cop trying to help them too. It was good, in the background moview, where you wanted something on, but weren't really paying attention to it- except when the music suggested someone was about to be eaten in a very unrealistic way.
A single child family MIGHT be able to pull that off if they started saving years in advance. 2 or 3 kids and no, $100k a year, and you can't afford the school.
Having multiple kids knocks you down the opulence ladder a few pegs. You may have average family income, but you're essentially upper lower class/lower middle class.
I was in college about the same time, I have 5 different grants/scholarships, but because I went to an expensive private school (that at the time I thought meant a better education), I still had to work a 35hr/week job and me and my parents split the cost after grants/scholarships.
That was in the 90s. There is no way I could make up the cost by working a full-time job now. Cheap public schools charge as much as the crappy expensive private school I went to.
It has helped find jobs though. Employers are always impressed with the school on my resume. I daren't tell them, the computer science department in that university was awful and I learn't nothing of practical use there in 4 years.
Pseudocode? I haven't used it once since graduating, they insisted proper programmers spend more time writing pseudocode than real code. They also told me that the average programmer writes three lines of code a day, and the rest of the time is spent trying to find bugs. I don't think I could hold down a job if that were true.
And that doesn't include housing, which can also be $20k a semester.
For that kind of money you could buy a VERY large house off campus.
The university I went to required you stay ON campus for the first two years. I think the going rate then was $7000 a year for lodging. That was 20 years ago, I can easily believe that's $20k today with the rate Universities have increased what they charge.
My third year I moved off campus, paid less and had a lot more space. The kids who came the year after me though had to sign up for four years living on campus. They did build some pretty slick on-campus housing for those in their third and fourth years though.
I don't think anyone is saying everyone should go to college. What they're saying is, who your parents are, and how much money they have, should not decide whether you have the right to a quality education or not.
Top 1% must spend more time with their car in the shop then. Never understood why anyone would buy a car that is notorious for breaking down every few hundred miles.