Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm? This strikes me as buying a dogs to deal with the cats that you brought in to deal with the mice...
Why?
Why not get rid of computers to prevent the spread of computer viruses? Why not get rid of cars so we never have a flat tyre? Why not kill everyone so they never get a cold?
I agree discouraging certain activities from pre-teens and teens is best- but these kids will grow up to be adults- and let adults have fun in an adult way!
Sure they should protect themselves properly- but I bet the vast majority won't at least once because of the heat of the moment... and from what I recall HPV cannot be prevented by the latex sleave anyway- so it's useless for the virus in question.
If your religion or morals state you shouldn't until marriage- that is your choice.
Most people do not consider it immoral these days - just as most christians don't consider it imoral to have christmas trees or clothes with blended fibres anymore. Times change and I'll be damned if anyone shoves their religion down my throat or that of my kids.
You are welcome to stay a virgin if that is your perogative and morale compass... but it isn't mine- and I refuse to live by someone elses religious dogma.
Students can learn about the components that make up a computer and learn the basics of computers all for $25.
That's way cooler than anything we did in IT when I was in high-school.
At the end of it- you get a takehome computer capable of playing Quake 3.
That's how you get the kids interested in this.
I've never used Linux. For $25 I may buy a kit for my son for Xmas. He can learn about computers- and then I can steal it from him and teach myself linux.
It won't work like that. Of course there will be enterprise that will offer loans, like there always was. But there also will be a great deal of belt tightening at schools, with some schools going out of business (rightly so). For some people, college is not an option, and there's nothing wrong about it IMHO.
I agree not everyone should need college- for some "careers" it does nothing.
Universities will charge less- but they will still take advantage of what a student is willing to pay- and get as much as what they can.
The student will still pay the same amount.
If the average university student is willing to pay $100 a month to pay off student loans (picking 100 for simplicity sake) then the pressure on pricing is such that a student will graduate paying $100 a month. Right now only 3% of that is interest- so ignoring compound interest for simplicity- $97 of that loan goes to the uni.
If private enterprise is willing to take on the risk of the student defaulting- they will want a higher cut- perhaps an 18% interest. Universities now only get $82 from that $100 (remember students are willing to pay $100 a month in loan payments after graduating in this scenario) private loaners will be getting a bigger chunk.
(when you factor in compound interest- universities get even less and the lenders get even more).
It is how free enterprise works- companies change the amount which results in the biggest profits. They will charge however much someone is willing to pay.
MORE students will be able to get by without a loan- but the least wealthy 80% would still need loans.
Completely agree! I lived in cheaper off-campus housing. Many schools now (including the one I went to) require that students live on campus. (so they can make more money off them).
The whole sports in school thing irks me somewhat. Now, I was born overseas in a country where college sports was something people did for fun - not a major industry- I moved to the US mid-highschool.
I understand that College sports is a social-institution here in the US and not something people would want to give up.
Americans are quick to criticise "socialised this" or "socialised that" (quite rightly in many cases)- yet fail to realise that college sports is essentially socialised sports- which is amazingly strange to me. It is sports backed with the funding power of a government institution.
Some big schools make a profit on their sports programmes- as a result, those same towns rarely have any long-term financially viable private sports teams.
My home town of about 30k had 4 semi-pro sports teams over 50 years old... you don't see that in the US because the socialised sports kills off any private teams- private teams don't live long here. Those sports profits are being taken from private enterprise.
Also, smaller schools that think that to compete with big schools they need a sports programme- so most smaller schools end up with huge net costs attributed to sporting programmes.
I don't know a solution- I know you can't just remove the sports programmes it is too much of culture over here; but the fact that it causes small schools to have higher expenses that don't see the same profits and kills private enterprise (on something which quite rightly should be private) bothers me.
- and I agree that the education system in this country (and the Health system and many others) is fundamentally flawed; over priced and needs an overhaul.
However, Ron Paul does actually want to do away with just about everything the government runs. I want government to tighten it's belt and get out of some regions... but there are some things that we need government for.
A government can't operate for the people without funds- which are taxes. Some of that must go to educating the public. An educated public ultimately pays dividends for you and I.
Yes, the federal loans are not the best option- but what would happen if they went away without any other plan?
Universities would fail to be able to cut costs enough (although they will try with mixed success)- quality brick and morter institutions will likely fail- and online universities will benefit. Not all students can thrive in this type environment- and the ones that can't won't necessily be the worst future workers.
For a generation of students at least loans will still be required. Students would be forced to turn to private enterprise to get loans- which would lead to higher rates for the students.
There is a market price for just how much students are willing to pay for education- it hasn't been hit yet, which is why costs have been going up- so downward price at universities would only be minimal... and only if the interest rates caused repayments to exceed that threshold. (which they probably will because the risk for the lender would be high- so rates would be astronomical- credit card level rates)
Bottom line is- universities would have to lower costs- students would still end up paying as much- but a higher % of that would be interest.
The only one that benefits will be the private lenders and the wealthy who can afford not to take a loan.
I had it easier than you- 90% of my schooling was paid through scholarship and grants- of the remainder my parents paid some towards my school- and I worked 35hrs a week (just one job... but year round) for the rest of it. I emerged from University with no loans.
I HAD to complete it in 4 years because of scholarships- I didn't have the option of spreading it out over more time to spread the burden. So despite major scholarships I still worked full time in order that I could live a meagre existence of 50cent microwavable mini-pizzas and TJ Maxx clearance clothes- I hit the jackpot on super cheap rent- paying only $250 a month- a great place with free cockroaches and lead paint.
Had I not had the scholarships- I couldn't have done it. Had I not had support from my parents- I couldn't have done it.
This was over a decade ago- since when costs have skyrocketed.
College now costs more than what an uneducated full-time worker makes.
You might have been able to get by in the 80s working jobs to pay your way- nowadays kids don't have that option.
That's what governments do- they take your money and give it to other people.
Don't like that? Well- then- let's abolish the police, the military, the judges... Wouldn't you just love to have all those positions run by private corps?
Government can take your money-because that's what governments do. Now, the money they take is supposed to be an investment- to improve life, to protect your life and make life for the citizens more profitable.
You can argue whether student loans do. There is no doubt in my mind that living in an educated America (tee hee) my chances to make more money are increased than if we were a nation of uneducated labourers and swine-herds.
I think the whole education system here in the US needs a complete overhaul- and the student loan system is flawed- but overall- I consider the US investing my money in the education of others does indeed make me wealthier in the long run.
Not exactly- but different products made it big there than in the US.
I know kids my generation in the US grew up mainly with Atari and some a Commodore 64. In the UK, for example- not many people had an Atari- and the Commodore was only one of many computer platforms.
Almost everyone I knew had a Spectrum of some kind.
Spectrums are fairly obscure in the US- but then- we (for the most part) didn't have Atari game consoles instead... our computers were our game consoles.
I just simply want to know- why- and for what motivation there is for "yet another OS".
I know the OS has a long and glorious history- but it will essentially be like starting from scratch in this day and age. With the market already saturated with Windows, Apple, and many flavours of Linux- do we really need another OS?
Is there some niche that Amiga can hold that none of the other OS do well at the moment? There are no 21st century applications written (that I know of) for the Amiga- so initially choice of software will be decades old- or a meagre line-up from Amiga themselves.
Does Amiga have some "trick-up-their-sleaves" that we don't know about- or is this purely a nostalgia product?
If it can run Windows apps or Mac apps or Linux apps- or maybe a combination- maybe it will stand a chance.
I have no beed with Amiga- or any ill-feeling towards them- but I simply can't see the purpose of it- can someone enlighten me please and tell me why I would want or need an Amiga?
However, I am sure if China were the global super-power and the US just an emerging power we would see the numbers reversed.
Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?
Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Singapore? Indonesia? India?
China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.
I will give you that in some cases CFL bulbs will cause more mercury pollution than incandescent bulbs- and in some places incandescent bulbs are better.
I think as a whole CFLs are better though (for the budget and the environment).
I still haven't replaced all my incandescents... when the bulbs burn out in my living room ceiling fan I buy more incandescents. - CFL daylight bulbs that are compatible with 3-way dimmers are too expensive and too hard to find.
1) Climate change is happening.... and yes, has always happened. We have evidence for this.
2) Lots of people are in huge denial of climate change and say global temperature is either not changing- or it is random changes. Even though we have had evidence for decades that the earth IS warming.
3) We now have evidence (from the same people who have been saying the climate is not changing) that proves it is- and it's current direction is somewhat linear (progressing upwards not random fluctuations). This is evidence from the deniers themselves... they surely can't deny change is happening anymore.
4) We know the climate is getting hotter. This causes rainfall patterns to change. Depending on how hot it gets weather will change in different ways. It's not just water levels rising- it's drought in some areas and cities unable to collect storm waters to prevent floods in others. It matters how hot it is going to get so we can map how climate change will change in 10-15-20 years. Agricultural economies need to prepare too.
5) It doesn't matter if it is caused by man or nature (well it does- but that is outside the scope of the study) - a lot of economies are going to be ruined if people keep taking this denial attitude that climate is not changing in a non-random fashion.
Politicians need to stop deny change- accept it is going to happen- and take the precautions to deal with the symptoms.
So yes climate is changing- yes we've known, yes some idiots still claim it isn't happening and YES it does matter how much and how fast. Not a contradictory statement in any fashion.
If only that were true. There are lots of people who deny that climate change is happening- or that it can impact our economy and weather patterns.
It isn't just important to know that it is changing- but in what direction and at what speed- so we can model how this might alter weather patterns and ice melting in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm? This strikes me as buying a dogs to deal with the cats that you brought in to deal with the mice...
Why?
Why not get rid of computers to prevent the spread of computer viruses?
Why not get rid of cars so we never have a flat tyre?
Why not kill everyone so they never get a cold?
I agree discouraging certain activities from pre-teens and teens is best- but these kids will grow up to be adults- and let adults have fun in an adult way!
Sure they should protect themselves properly- but I bet the vast majority won't at least once because of the heat of the moment... and from what I recall HPV cannot be prevented by the latex sleave anyway- so it's useless for the virus in question.
If your religion or morals state you shouldn't until marriage- that is your choice.
Most people do not consider it immoral these days - just as most christians don't consider it imoral to have christmas trees or clothes with blended fibres anymore. Times change and I'll be damned if anyone shoves their religion down my throat or that of my kids.
You are welcome to stay a virgin if that is your perogative and morale compass... but it isn't mine- and I refuse to live by someone elses religious dogma.
Is there not a test for HPV- for those HPV negative- they could be vaccinated.
I support Geo Engineering.
Otherwise thousands of owners of Geo Metros, Prizms and Storms would have no way to fix their cars when they repeatedly break.
Of course it isn't useless.
Students can learn about the components that make up a computer and learn the basics of computers all for $25.
That's way cooler than anything we did in IT when I was in high-school.
At the end of it- you get a takehome computer capable of playing Quake 3.
That's how you get the kids interested in this.
I've never used Linux. For $25 I may buy a kit for my son for Xmas. He can learn about computers- and then I can steal it from him and teach myself linux.
Finally... I can afford to upgrade my home PC to something more powerfull!
Does the universe stop moving when I go to sleep? Can you prove it?
I know events can be perceived to "happen" whilst I sleep- but can we be sure these are not just figments caused by the universe rebooting?
Will the universe cease to exist when I die? Again- can you prove it?
I think some of the rednecks that get probed in UFOs have been "hit" by "space junk".
My first employer insisted that all software start at version 3.1.
His theory was that it would be easier to sell software that was version 3.1 or later than starting at version 1.
Every application we wrote therefore began at Version 3.1 when brand new.
Global olivearchy.
1% of Olive farmers control over 50% of the world's olives.
It won't work like that. Of course there will be enterprise that will offer loans, like there always was. But there also will be a great deal of belt tightening at schools, with some schools going out of business (rightly so). For some people, college is not an option, and there's nothing wrong about it IMHO.
I agree not everyone should need college- for some "careers" it does nothing.
Universities will charge less- but they will still take advantage of what a student is willing to pay- and get as much as what they can.
The student will still pay the same amount.
If the average university student is willing to pay $100 a month to pay off student loans (picking 100 for simplicity sake) then the pressure on pricing is such that a student will graduate paying $100 a month. Right now only 3% of that is interest- so ignoring compound interest for simplicity- $97 of that loan goes to the uni.
If private enterprise is willing to take on the risk of the student defaulting- they will want a higher cut- perhaps an 18% interest. Universities now only get $82 from that $100 (remember students are willing to pay $100 a month in loan payments after graduating in this scenario) private loaners will be getting a bigger chunk.
(when you factor in compound interest- universities get even less and the lenders get even more).
It is how free enterprise works- companies change the amount which results in the biggest profits. They will charge however much someone is willing to pay.
MORE students will be able to get by without a loan- but the least wealthy 80% would still need loans.
When de watah rises mon- ye land in the islands will be gone too.
Completely agree! I lived in cheaper off-campus housing. Many schools now (including the one I went to) require that students live on campus. (so they can make more money off them).
The whole sports in school thing irks me somewhat. Now, I was born overseas in a country where college sports was something people did for fun - not a major industry- I moved to the US mid-highschool.
I understand that College sports is a social-institution here in the US and not something people would want to give up.
Americans are quick to criticise "socialised this" or "socialised that" (quite rightly in many cases)- yet fail to realise that college sports is essentially socialised sports- which is amazingly strange to me. It is sports backed with the funding power of a government institution.
Some big schools make a profit on their sports programmes- as a result, those same towns rarely have any long-term financially viable private sports teams.
My home town of about 30k had 4 semi-pro sports teams over 50 years old... you don't see that in the US because the socialised sports kills off any private teams- private teams don't live long here. Those sports profits are being taken from private enterprise.
Also, smaller schools that think that to compete with big schools they need a sports programme- so most smaller schools end up with huge net costs attributed to sporting programmes.
I don't know a solution- I know you can't just remove the sports programmes it is too much of culture over here; but the fact that it causes small schools to have higher expenses that don't see the same profits and kills private enterprise (on something which quite rightly should be private) bothers me.
- and I agree that the education system in this country (and the Health system and many others) is fundamentally flawed; over priced and needs an overhaul.
However, Ron Paul does actually want to do away with just about everything the government runs. I want government to tighten it's belt and get out of some regions... but there are some things that we need government for.
A government can't operate for the people without funds- which are taxes. Some of that must go to educating the public. An educated public ultimately pays dividends for you and I.
Yes, the federal loans are not the best option- but what would happen if they went away without any other plan?
Universities would fail to be able to cut costs enough (although they will try with mixed success)- quality brick and morter institutions will likely fail- and online universities will benefit. Not all students can thrive in this type environment- and the ones that can't won't necessily be the worst future workers.
For a generation of students at least loans will still be required. Students would be forced to turn to private enterprise to get loans- which would lead to higher rates for the students.
There is a market price for just how much students are willing to pay for education- it hasn't been hit yet, which is why costs have been going up- so downward price at universities would only be minimal... and only if the interest rates caused repayments to exceed that threshold. (which they probably will because the risk for the lender would be high- so rates would be astronomical- credit card level rates)
Bottom line is- universities would have to lower costs- students would still end up paying as much- but a higher % of that would be interest.
The only one that benefits will be the private lenders and the wealthy who can afford not to take a loan.
I had it easier than you- 90% of my schooling was paid through scholarship and grants- of the remainder my parents paid some towards my school- and I worked 35hrs a week (just one job... but year round) for the rest of it. I emerged from University with no loans.
I HAD to complete it in 4 years because of scholarships- I didn't have the option of spreading it out over more time to spread the burden. So despite major scholarships I still worked full time in order that I could live a meagre existence of 50cent microwavable mini-pizzas and TJ Maxx clearance clothes- I hit the jackpot on super cheap rent- paying only $250 a month- a great place with free cockroaches and lead paint.
Had I not had the scholarships- I couldn't have done it. Had I not had support from my parents- I couldn't have done it.
This was over a decade ago- since when costs have skyrocketed.
College now costs more than what an uneducated full-time worker makes.
You might have been able to get by in the 80s working jobs to pay your way- nowadays kids don't have that option.
Where does it say the federal government can't?
That's what governments do- they take your money and give it to other people.
Don't like that? Well- then- let's abolish the police, the military, the judges... Wouldn't you just love to have all those positions run by private corps?
Government can take your money-because that's what governments do. Now, the money they take is supposed to be an investment- to improve life, to protect your life and make life for the citizens more profitable.
You can argue whether student loans do. There is no doubt in my mind that living in an educated America (tee hee) my chances to make more money are increased than if we were a nation of uneducated labourers and swine-herds.
I think the whole education system here in the US needs a complete overhaul- and the student loan system is flawed- but overall- I consider the US investing my money in the education of others does indeed make me wealthier in the long run.
Not exactly- but different products made it big there than in the US.
I know kids my generation in the US grew up mainly with Atari and some a Commodore 64. In the UK, for example- not many people had an Atari- and the Commodore was only one of many computer platforms.
Almost everyone I knew had a Spectrum of some kind.
Spectrums are fairly obscure in the US- but then- we (for the most part) didn't have Atari game consoles instead... our computers were our game consoles.
OK- not bashing amiga- nor praising it.
I just simply want to know- why- and for what motivation there is for "yet another OS".
I know the OS has a long and glorious history- but it will essentially be like starting from scratch in this day and age. With the market already saturated with Windows, Apple, and many flavours of Linux- do we really need another OS?
Is there some niche that Amiga can hold that none of the other OS do well at the moment? There are no 21st century applications written (that I know of) for the Amiga- so initially choice of software will be decades old- or a meagre line-up from Amiga themselves.
Does Amiga have some "trick-up-their-sleaves" that we don't know about- or is this purely a nostalgia product?
If it can run Windows apps or Mac apps or Linux apps- or maybe a combination- maybe it will stand a chance.
I have no beed with Amiga- or any ill-feeling towards them- but I simply can't see the purpose of it- can someone enlighten me please and tell me why I would want or need an Amiga?
Sounds a great slogan:
Keep Europe beautiful- dump your toxins in China.
I think that could take off...
In recent years- the US.
However, I am sure if China were the global super-power and the US just an emerging power we would see the numbers reversed.
Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?
Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Singapore? Indonesia? India?
China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.
I imagine the vast majority of the petitions submitted will be silly and drown out real ones.
I'm sure things like "Make Jedi the official religion of the US" will get more signatures than any serious issue.
I will give you that in some cases CFL bulbs will cause more mercury pollution than incandescent bulbs- and in some places incandescent bulbs are better.
I think as a whole CFLs are better though (for the budget and the environment).
I still haven't replaced all my incandescents... when the bulbs burn out in my living room ceiling fan I buy more incandescents. - CFL daylight bulbs that are compatible with 3-way dimmers are too expensive and too hard to find.
Some countries such as Bangladesh are set to lose MOST of their agricultural land.
Some island nations could be completely underwater under the worst-case scenarios.
Some countries such as the Netherlands have large portions of their territory already below sea-level. Would be disasterous for those countries.
For lands that are already below sea-level there is increased risk of flooding- especially in areas that are not accustomed to flooding.
It would be impractical to move a city like New York- so some sort of storm surge protection like Holland uses will need to be implented.
It's not so much people are going to drown from sea-level rises (except during the increased storms that will occur)- it's the financial cost.
Nothing contradictory about it:
1) Climate change is happening.... and yes, has always happened. We have evidence for this.
2) Lots of people are in huge denial of climate change and say global temperature is either not changing- or it is random changes. Even though we have had evidence for decades that the earth IS warming.
3) We now have evidence (from the same people who have been saying the climate is not changing) that proves it is- and it's current direction is somewhat linear (progressing upwards not random fluctuations). This is evidence from the deniers themselves... they surely can't deny change is happening anymore.
4) We know the climate is getting hotter. This causes rainfall patterns to change. Depending on how hot it gets weather will change in different ways. It's not just water levels rising- it's drought in some areas and cities unable to collect storm waters to prevent floods in others. It matters how hot it is going to get so we can map how climate change will change in 10-15-20 years. Agricultural economies need to prepare too.
5) It doesn't matter if it is caused by man or nature (well it does- but that is outside the scope of the study) - a lot of economies are going to be ruined if people keep taking this denial attitude that climate is not changing in a non-random fashion.
Politicians need to stop deny change- accept it is going to happen- and take the precautions to deal with the symptoms.
So yes climate is changing- yes we've known, yes some idiots still claim it isn't happening and YES it does matter how much and how fast. Not a contradictory statement in any fashion.
That is sooooo 1990 of you. Join the 21st century- even bees have iPhones now.
The GPS function on it has revolutionized nectar collection.
If only that were true. There are lots of people who deny that climate change is happening- or that it can impact our economy and weather patterns.
It isn't just important to know that it is changing- but in what direction and at what speed- so we can model how this might alter weather patterns and ice melting in the future.