While governments and corporations are not people, I would argue that governments, at least, have some right to privacy in certain situations.
Again, like with most things, it's not an all or nothing proposition. Should I know how my congressman voted on the last counter-espionage act? Absolutely. Should I know roughly what the spies that now receive funding are doing? Absolutely. Should I know where they're doing it or who they are? No. Maybe I should roughly know where they're operating - as in region of the planet. But, for their safety, and the safety of their operation, they deserve some privacy.
People like you need to stop making the argument that government and corporations are: (a) the same thing and (b) bound to laws that are always black and white all the time. Believe it or not, there is a shit-load of gray area in the world.
Anyway - I bought a mid-grade laptop. It started shutting off randomly. It ran just fine if you kept pressure on the battery. So, my first thought was bad connection of some kind. So I kept it plugged in. Then it started randomly shutting off when it was plugged in.
In the end, the MOBO was smoked, and was probably bad when I received the thing. I called their cs, they walked me through two or three (what I call) idiot catch steps, decided it was something bigger, and sent a tech out. Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.
This is the first time I've been called a shill, though. Pretty exciting. Look at my past comments. I'm plainly just a person. . . .
I have owned one Dell laptop. I had a problem with that laptop, so I was forced to call customer support. It was an awesome experience. They walked me through all the regular nonsense (restart, etc), had me run one diagnostic and tell them the results, and they sent a tech out to fix the issue within a week. Overall, 8.5/10 experience (it would have been higher, but it was a new laptop and shouldn't have had hardware issues to begin with. But the tech was hot.)
Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been employed by, paid by in any fashion, or at all related to Dell computers. Except for that laptop, that is.
This argument absolutely reeks of entitlement. Just because you are physically able to do something doesn't mean that you have the right to. The resource was not secured to begin with, that is correct, and it's MIT's fault.
BUT, to use a comparison, it's like walking into your neighbor's house and taking his stuff simply because he forgot to lock his doors, then saying, "If he wanted to keep his stuff, he should have locked it up." That may be, but you shouldn't take the shit in the first place.
Believe it or not, you're not entitled to do whatever you want until someone stops you. That's not how it's supposed to work, and that's not how healthy people are supposed to operate in a social system. We are supposed to cooperate, do what's right, and be decent people. Arguments like yours, and I assume people like you, are the reason that everyone has to lock their doors at night, lock their cars in their own driveways, and watch their kids when they play in the park. You are not entitled to break the law, no matter how easy it is to do.
Oh, and if your neighbor used your hose to fill his pool, you have every right to sue for repayment under current laws.
Theoretically speaking, I can club a person to death with a gun. Theoretically, a serial killer could kill people with a fucking tea bottle and get away with it. Theoretically I am seven foot six inches, blonde haired, blue eyed, and am referred to as Wulfgar.
If you are claiming that a hammer is more dangerous than a gun, you need to re-evaluate your life choices. I mean no offense by that statement, I genuinely believe that you should re-evaluate your choices.
It's not about banning guns. It turns out that gun control, like most things in life, isn't an x or y proposition. It turns out that gray areas are prevalent, and compromise is important. . .
It's not about preventing access completely, don't put words in my mouth. It's about making it just a bit harder for folks to get guns, so that maybe, just maybe, we can turn one or two suicides into attempted suicides, and one or two mass-shooters into weird dudes that live down the block.
A closer tie between background checks and mental health. A stronger mental health assessment and treatment system. Monitoring of repeat offenders and enforcement of current legislation designed to keep guns out of repeat offenders' hands.
And let's walk down the road that you pave right there at the end. Let's say that the feds get their shit together long enough to go to every home that has a gun registered to it to take these weapons. Right now, in my home, I have six unregistered, and completely legal firearms. They were purchased and manufactured before there were serial numbers and well before you had to register your firearms. They are just as dangerous as other guns, but the government has absolutely no idea that I had them.
I know I'm not alone, I know three other people who have unregistered firearms as well, and I live in an incredible sparsely populated area. I imagine they're everywhere.
Again, life is never black and white. Stop forcing that perspective on other people and yourself. Think about compromise. Saying that we shouldn't change anything BECAUSE IT JUST WON'T WORK is stupid. You never know unless you try. Or is that too obvious?
However, I have noticed that, outside of the best and worst jobs,lack of productivity seems to be a serious problem in America. Your average office worker spends a sizable portion of the day browsing the internet (correct me if I'm wrong!). Believe it or not, this does not happen in many European countries.
So, your claim is that a majority of workers in Europe don't screw around at work, ever? I doubt that.
What our workers do, (from my own experience), is take micro-breaks; they will work on a project, then check facebook, then go back to work, then check reddit, then go back to work, etc. If you're claiming that employees in an area of the world as vast and as varied as Europe don't do that, or something like that, I see two options: (a) there is no internet or other humans to interact with in Europe; or (b) it's bullshit.
Keep in mind that I'm writing this from work, though. . . .
You know, I agree with you on the purpose of this type of article, and am a proud gun owner in the midwest - but I genuinely do not understand the comparison between guns and clubs/hammers.
Guns have the capacity to kill many, many, many more people than a hammer, and are therefore inherently more dangerous. Guns were designed specifically to kill things, and anyone who claims they were made for target shooting, or for any other reason is an idiot.
Gun control doesn't automatically mean "THEY GONNA TAKE ER GUNS". It might make it harder and a bit more expensive to buy them, but it's not like someone is going to come to your home demanding your guns.
And do you have a citation for the clubs and hammers study? Otherwise I call bs.
Yes, the intended purpose of a gun is to kill, but that's not the argument. The argument is that they're not intended to kill children.
In the area that I live, I know of several families that wouldn't have meat on a semi-regular basis without guns. You do realize that not everyone lives in urban centers, correct? In my area of the country, guns serve several purposes: protection of livestock, hunting food and general entertainment. Yes, most of those are off-shoots of killing, but you'll notice how shooting people doesn't make that list.
Re:Did Zuckerberg ever have to get past HR?
on
Just Say No To College
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The issue isn't that the barista and waitress paid the money, the issue is that they did it wrong. I advise students on a regular basis at the very beginning of their college careers (right before they go to be exact). I tell every single one the following:
You will hear people tell you that there are good and bad degrees. This isn't inherently true. Some look good on paper, some don't. Some specialize you, some don't. What is important are the connections you make while you're in school, how much you spend on it, and what you want. If you don't spend much money, then sure, get the art history degree - you'll be no worse off financially, you'll have fun and learn some useful skills, and you really won't limit your job prospects at all. BUT, if you're looking at 200K in debt, maybe don't. If you want to grow up to design cars but you're bad at art and don't own/can't afford a computer, don't go to a four year, go technical - be a mechanic and get your hands dirty. Earn some cash and go into design later, once you understand what people really like in cars. If you like computers, but don't really want to learn about the software - be a repairperson - 18 months and you're out, or work for a big-box and take their little training course. If you want to get an English degree and be a writer, great - but be prepared to kiss every professor's ass to make connections, and brace yourself for 20-30 years of bitterness and disappointment.
Again, the issue isn't that kids are going to college in record numbers, or that there are jobs you can do with and without a degree. It's that we have a college-going society who is still early enough in the cycle to remember the days when few people went to college, and a bachelors actually brought you accolades. It's that we have a values structure of "college will get you there" in a "debt will crush you" society. If students had a more realistic assessment of what they can/can't do with a college degree, I think we would be a lot better off. Also, if students had a more realistic view of what they actually have to do in college to apply the art history degree in the future, I believe less would go.
Why are there so many psychology degrees working as waitresses? Because you can coast through that degree, it's interesting and people don't look down on it. Why are there so many baristas with English degrees? Because it's fun, it's easy to coast, and you learn some good skills. Why are there so few psychologists and (good) authors? Because few students take the time to make connections and apply themselves in college to map out their futures.
Honestly, the fault is about 75/25 split between the individual and the school. Schools sell students programs, the government sells students schools, and someone makes money. BUT, students really should be personally responsible for their own futures. A small amount of planning can turn that bullshit English Literature degree into a comfortable, upper-middle class job. (I can attest to that)
I've seen it is common among some anthropologists to consider the history of humanity in the same terms as the most recent history (last 6.000 years): in terms of war and contending parties. Is there anyone informed enough (more than me) about this topic that can tell if it is actually a trait of human history or an ideological bias?
I would imagine that their decision that these bladelets were parts of larger weapons has a lot to do with the shape of the tools compared to the shape of tools whose use we understand.
For instance: on the creek on our farm, we're all the time finding flint tools. It's quite easy to distinguish between those used as weapons and those used as hammers, scrapers or knives for sculpting. The shapes aren't even close to the same.
I do have to assume that a specialist in this field would understand that basic premise.I also believe that specialists in this field do not apply ideological bias, as much as apply what we know about tools we understand compared to the shape and design of these tools.
It's a lot like putting together a dinosaur's muscle structure based on what we know about modern reptiles and amphibians.
I agree - tractors and what-not are fine, but that technology exists now, we will get there again. In the event of a full-on collapse, basic survival skills and how we used to do business before modern conveniences become more useful than how to build a diesel engine.
Thanks [sic] failed sports programs who given [sic] every child a trophy, and no child left behind.
That should read, Thank parents for being pains in the ass to school districts and demanding that their snowflake DESERVES a trophy.
Don't blame the school systems for turning into what they were asked to become. Blame the parents and society for leading in that direction. What's that old saying? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
. A lot of students come to high school already knowing what they want to do and where they want to go in life.
That is not true. Some come into high school believing they know what they want to do and where they want to go in life, but most do not. The average college student changes his/her major three times in the first two years. The reason we have a broad base is to give students who might not be exposed to this stuff at home the chance to see what's out there. So your kid is special, and you're an amazing parent and know exactly what s/he loves to do, great - then home school the self-entitled little thing and leave the rest of us alone. Remember that not every student had the opportunities that you had, and a diverse high school curriculum is the only way they learn about many, many topics.
Oh, and don't forget that the only thing further specialization of high school as a pipe-line into a direct college track for a particular career does is increase the number of young people who kill themselves.
A Luxury... One must be careful about diluting the word "right."
Yes, one must be careful, but I would still say that internet access is a right or is quickly moving toward becoming one
When living your life often requires internet access, then it becomes a right. If everyone had provided the non-internet equivalent of the daily services, then maybe it would be a luxury
Example: Many providers (online vendors, credit cards, etc) try to hide a phone-based or even human-based customer support. Email forms are your only way
Example: Rent a video from the vending machine. Want a receipt? Well, you can enter an email
The number of examples where email/broadband availability is ASSUMED will increase in the future, because it is cheaper to remove human cost from the equation. Thus, the non-internet minority will become marginalized to an increasingly greater degree.
None of those things are necessities for life. To survive, to be alive, I do not need to use on-line vendors. I do not need credit cards. I do not need to rent videos.
I want to do those things, but by no means do I need to. The problem is that most people, the AC included, at this point do not understand the fundamental difference between need and want.
That was my first thought these things will never go away, because they're just so freaking easy to upgrade on the cheap - when asked about the last time I purchased a new PC, my answer is 2003. This is because that is the last time I purchased an entirely new rig. Between 2003 and the present, though, I have replaced everything in the machine, along with the cables, screen and case.
Is it an entirely new pc? Well, that depends. At one time, or another, each of these pieces interacted with a piece of the original machine, or a piece that interacted with a piece of the original machine (I think the most is 2 generations of that). David Wong was brilliant when he wrote about the axe paradox. I have no answer to that question.
But for a twelve year old kid, there's just something about the idea of strapping yourself to a missile for no other reason than to go really, really, really fast. Turns are great, and I agree, but come on - 1,000 mph? I'd do it, and I'm a full-grown human. Now imagine being a little kid and seeing this thing tearing ass across the desert.
In the words of the immortal bard, Shakespeare, "FUCK YEAH."
Right now, academic performance has no bearing in you getting an award for college, only economic need. This is insane. I would certainly expect that there be some type of demonstration of capability and desire before one gets aid. Other countries do it, and I wish the US did as well.
Have you seen the amount of aid the students get (not loans, just aid)? It's not enough to fund a 4-year university education. No where near enough. Right now the maximum amount of federal Pell is $5,500. After that you have access to state-grants that range from a maximum of $3000 to $5000 per academic year If you qualify, if the money is released, and if you get your application in by X date each year. It's enough to put you through a trade-school or community college, absolutely. But, it's not going to make anyone wealthy, or provide anyone with immediate and debt-free access to university - don't act like it will.
ALSO - Academic performance has a HUGE bearing on scholarships, fellowships, assistantships and the like. These are how to successfully get your college/university career paid for with no strings attached. Don't confuse aid with loans; they're two separate things. If you are saying that there should be an academic proficiency exam to have access to credit, we just crossed into new and exciting territory.
And I'm going to try to interpret what AC so eloquently stated: It's not that the government can't restrict access to aid and loans. It's the question of WHO gets to decide who has access? Who gets to be the person in charge of Millions and Millions of destinies?
My number one fear isn't a future without privacy - it's a future where we are tracked into careers based on standardized tests. I was told that I shouldn't go to college and I shouldn't really worry about trying to get a job outside of basic hourly retail and food-service. I was tracked through grade-school and high-school into technical programs instead of college prep. ALL because I screwed around on a handful of tests.
Sometimes people need access to money they might not have access to otherwise - it's not about giving the poor an advantage, it's about trying to level the playing field between rich and poor.
Side note - All of that technical crap didn't stick - I have two advanced degrees now and teach at the college and university level. - Sometimes tracking is incorrect!
I'm not OP, but 50,000 for a car is outlandish for most people. 100,000 is more than many spend on a home where I live. The median price for a home here is ~45,000.
So, yes, those prices make you a rich son of a bitch.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, like with most things, it's not an all or nothing proposition. Should I know how my congressman voted on the last counter-espionage act? Absolutely. Should I know roughly what the spies that now receive funding are doing? Absolutely. Should I know where they're doing it or who they are? No. Maybe I should roughly know where they're operating - as in region of the planet. But, for their safety, and the safety of their operation, they deserve some privacy.
People like you need to stop making the argument that government and corporations are: (a) the same thing and (b) bound to laws that are always black and white all the time. Believe it or not, there is a shit-load of gray area in the world.
Define for me, "Standard Browser." If you would, please.
I promise you I'm not a shill
PROMISES ON THE INTERNET ARE ALWAYS TRUE
Anyway - I bought a mid-grade laptop. It started shutting off randomly. It ran just fine if you kept pressure on the battery. So, my first thought was bad connection of some kind. So I kept it plugged in. Then it started randomly shutting off when it was plugged in.
In the end, the MOBO was smoked, and was probably bad when I received the thing. I called their cs, they walked me through two or three (what I call) idiot catch steps, decided it was something bigger, and sent a tech out. Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.
This is the first time I've been called a shill, though. Pretty exciting. Look at my past comments. I'm plainly just a person. . . .
It was 2012.
I have owned one Dell laptop. I had a problem with that laptop, so I was forced to call customer support. It was an awesome experience. They walked me through all the regular nonsense (restart, etc), had me run one diagnostic and tell them the results, and they sent a tech out to fix the issue within a week. Overall, 8.5/10 experience (it would have been higher, but it was a new laptop and shouldn't have had hardware issues to begin with. But the tech was hot.)
Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been employed by, paid by in any fashion, or at all related to Dell computers. Except for that laptop, that is.
This argument absolutely reeks of entitlement. Just because you are physically able to do something doesn't mean that you have the right to. The resource was not secured to begin with, that is correct, and it's MIT's fault.
BUT, to use a comparison, it's like walking into your neighbor's house and taking his stuff simply because he forgot to lock his doors, then saying, "If he wanted to keep his stuff, he should have locked it up." That may be, but you shouldn't take the shit in the first place.
Believe it or not, you're not entitled to do whatever you want until someone stops you. That's not how it's supposed to work, and that's not how healthy people are supposed to operate in a social system. We are supposed to cooperate, do what's right, and be decent people. Arguments like yours, and I assume people like you, are the reason that everyone has to lock their doors at night, lock their cars in their own driveways, and watch their kids when they play in the park. You are not entitled to break the law, no matter how easy it is to do.
Oh, and if your neighbor used your hose to fill his pool, you have every right to sue for repayment under current laws.
completely legal firearms.
Did you miss that part? Check your local/state ordinances, I bet they would be legal in most areas of the country. . . .
Theoretically speaking, I can club a person to death with a gun. Theoretically, a serial killer could kill people with a fucking tea bottle and get away with it. Theoretically I am seven foot six inches, blonde haired, blue eyed, and am referred to as Wulfgar.
If you are claiming that a hammer is more dangerous than a gun, you need to re-evaluate your life choices. I mean no offense by that statement, I genuinely believe that you should re-evaluate your choices.
It's not about banning guns. It turns out that gun control, like most things in life, isn't an x or y proposition. It turns out that gray areas are prevalent, and compromise is important. . .
It's not about preventing access completely, don't put words in my mouth. It's about making it just a bit harder for folks to get guns, so that maybe, just maybe, we can turn one or two suicides into attempted suicides, and one or two mass-shooters into weird dudes that live down the block.
A closer tie between background checks and mental health. A stronger mental health assessment and treatment system. Monitoring of repeat offenders and enforcement of current legislation designed to keep guns out of repeat offenders' hands.
And let's walk down the road that you pave right there at the end. Let's say that the feds get their shit together long enough to go to every home that has a gun registered to it to take these weapons. Right now, in my home, I have six unregistered, and completely legal firearms. They were purchased and manufactured before there were serial numbers and well before you had to register your firearms. They are just as dangerous as other guns, but the government has absolutely no idea that I had them.
I know I'm not alone, I know three other people who have unregistered firearms as well, and I live in an incredible sparsely populated area. I imagine they're everywhere.
Again, life is never black and white. Stop forcing that perspective on other people and yourself. Think about compromise. Saying that we shouldn't change anything BECAUSE IT JUST WON'T WORK is stupid. You never know unless you try. Or is that too obvious?
However, I have noticed that, outside of the best and worst jobs,lack of productivity seems to be a serious problem in America. Your average office worker spends a sizable portion of the day browsing the internet (correct me if I'm wrong!). Believe it or not, this does not happen in many European countries.
So, your claim is that a majority of workers in Europe don't screw around at work, ever? I doubt that.
What our workers do, (from my own experience), is take micro-breaks; they will work on a project, then check facebook, then go back to work, then check reddit, then go back to work, etc. If you're claiming that employees in an area of the world as vast and as varied as Europe don't do that, or something like that, I see two options: (a) there is no internet or other humans to interact with in Europe; or (b) it's bullshit.
Keep in mind that I'm writing this from work, though. . . .
You know, I agree with you on the purpose of this type of article, and am a proud gun owner in the midwest - but I genuinely do not understand the comparison between guns and clubs/hammers.
Guns have the capacity to kill many, many, many more people than a hammer, and are therefore inherently more dangerous. Guns were designed specifically to kill things, and anyone who claims they were made for target shooting, or for any other reason is an idiot.
Gun control doesn't automatically mean "THEY GONNA TAKE ER GUNS". It might make it harder and a bit more expensive to buy them, but it's not like someone is going to come to your home demanding your guns.
And do you have a citation for the clubs and hammers study? Otherwise I call bs.
Yes, the intended purpose of a gun is to kill, but that's not the argument. The argument is that they're not intended to kill children.
In the area that I live, I know of several families that wouldn't have meat on a semi-regular basis without guns. You do realize that not everyone lives in urban centers, correct? In my area of the country, guns serve several purposes: protection of livestock, hunting food and general entertainment. Yes, most of those are off-shoots of killing, but you'll notice how shooting people doesn't make that list.
You will hear people tell you that there are good and bad degrees. This isn't inherently true. Some look good on paper, some don't. Some specialize you, some don't. What is important are the connections you make while you're in school, how much you spend on it, and what you want. If you don't spend much money, then sure, get the art history degree - you'll be no worse off financially, you'll have fun and learn some useful skills, and you really won't limit your job prospects at all. BUT, if you're looking at 200K in debt, maybe don't. If you want to grow up to design cars but you're bad at art and don't own/can't afford a computer, don't go to a four year, go technical - be a mechanic and get your hands dirty. Earn some cash and go into design later, once you understand what people really like in cars. If you like computers, but don't really want to learn about the software - be a repairperson - 18 months and you're out, or work for a big-box and take their little training course. If you want to get an English degree and be a writer, great - but be prepared to kiss every professor's ass to make connections, and brace yourself for 20-30 years of bitterness and disappointment.
Again, the issue isn't that kids are going to college in record numbers, or that there are jobs you can do with and without a degree. It's that we have a college-going society who is still early enough in the cycle to remember the days when few people went to college, and a bachelors actually brought you accolades. It's that we have a values structure of "college will get you there" in a "debt will crush you" society. If students had a more realistic assessment of what they can/can't do with a college degree, I think we would be a lot better off. Also, if students had a more realistic view of what they actually have to do in college to apply the art history degree in the future, I believe less would go.
Why are there so many psychology degrees working as waitresses? Because you can coast through that degree, it's interesting and people don't look down on it. Why are there so many baristas with English degrees? Because it's fun, it's easy to coast, and you learn some good skills. Why are there so few psychologists and (good) authors? Because few students take the time to make connections and apply themselves in college to map out their futures.
Honestly, the fault is about 75/25 split between the individual and the school. Schools sell students programs, the government sells students schools, and someone makes money. BUT, students really should be personally responsible for their own futures. A small amount of planning can turn that bullshit English Literature degree into a comfortable, upper-middle class job. (I can attest to that)
I've seen it is common among some anthropologists to consider the history of humanity in the same terms as the most recent history (last 6.000 years): in terms of war and contending parties. Is there anyone informed enough (more than me) about this topic that can tell if it is actually a trait of human history or an ideological bias?
I would imagine that their decision that these bladelets were parts of larger weapons has a lot to do with the shape of the tools compared to the shape of tools whose use we understand.
For instance: on the creek on our farm, we're all the time finding flint tools. It's quite easy to distinguish between those used as weapons and those used as hammers, scrapers or knives for sculpting. The shapes aren't even close to the same.
I do have to assume that a specialist in this field would understand that basic premise.I also believe that specialists in this field do not apply ideological bias, as much as apply what we know about tools we understand compared to the shape and design of these tools.
It's a lot like putting together a dinosaur's muscle structure based on what we know about modern reptiles and amphibians.
Oh, and it was a really short wait with friendly people. And the lead polling judge even baked cookies for today. God bless small town America.
I forgot to update my polling place when I built a home. So, I got to fill out the sweet provisional ballot.
I agree - tractors and what-not are fine, but that technology exists now, we will get there again. In the event of a full-on collapse, basic survival skills and how we used to do business before modern conveniences become more useful than how to build a diesel engine.
And that, folks, is one prospect that GREATLY excites me.
Thanks [sic] failed sports programs who given [sic] every child a trophy, and no child left behind.
That should read, Thank parents for being pains in the ass to school districts and demanding that their snowflake DESERVES a trophy.
Don't blame the school systems for turning into what they were asked to become. Blame the parents and society for leading in that direction. What's that old saying? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
. A lot of students come to high school already knowing what they want to do and where they want to go in life.
That is not true. Some come into high school believing they know what they want to do and where they want to go in life, but most do not. The average college student changes his/her major three times in the first two years. The reason we have a broad base is to give students who might not be exposed to this stuff at home the chance to see what's out there. So your kid is special, and you're an amazing parent and know exactly what s/he loves to do, great - then home school the self-entitled little thing and leave the rest of us alone. Remember that not every student had the opportunities that you had, and a diverse high school curriculum is the only way they learn about many, many topics.
Oh, and don't forget that the only thing further specialization of high school as a pipe-line into a direct college track for a particular career does is increase the number of young people who kill themselves.
A Luxury ... One must be careful about diluting the word "right."
Yes, one must be careful, but I would still say that internet access is a right or is quickly moving toward becoming one
When living your life often requires internet access, then it becomes a right. If everyone had provided the non-internet equivalent of the daily services, then maybe it would be a luxury
Example: Many providers (online vendors, credit cards, etc) try to hide a phone-based or even human-based customer support. Email forms are your only way
Example: Rent a video from the vending machine. Want a receipt? Well, you can enter an email
The number of examples where email/broadband availability is ASSUMED will increase in the future, because it is cheaper to remove human cost from the equation. Thus, the non-internet minority will become marginalized to an increasingly greater degree.
None of those things are necessities for life. To survive, to be alive, I do not need to use on-line vendors. I do not need credit cards. I do not need to rent videos.
I want to do those things, but by no means do I need to. The problem is that most people, the AC included, at this point do not understand the fundamental difference between need and want.
That was my first thought these things will never go away, because they're just so freaking easy to upgrade on the cheap - when asked about the last time I purchased a new PC, my answer is 2003. This is because that is the last time I purchased an entirely new rig. Between 2003 and the present, though, I have replaced everything in the machine, along with the cables, screen and case.
Is it an entirely new pc? Well, that depends. At one time, or another, each of these pieces interacted with a piece of the original machine, or a piece that interacted with a piece of the original machine (I think the most is 2 generations of that). David Wong was brilliant when he wrote about the axe paradox. I have no answer to that question.
But for a twelve year old kid, there's just something about the idea of strapping yourself to a missile for no other reason than to go really, really, really fast. Turns are great, and I agree, but come on - 1,000 mph? I'd do it, and I'm a full-grown human. Now imagine being a little kid and seeing this thing tearing ass across the desert.
In the words of the immortal bard, Shakespeare, "FUCK YEAH."
I just don't get the point of rocket cars.
Because we were all twelve once?
Right now, academic performance has no bearing in you getting an award for college, only economic need. This is insane. I would certainly expect that there be some type of demonstration of capability and desire before one gets aid. Other countries do it, and I wish the US did as well.
Have you seen the amount of aid the students get (not loans, just aid)? It's not enough to fund a 4-year university education. No where near enough. Right now the maximum amount of federal Pell is $5,500. After that you have access to state-grants that range from a maximum of $3000 to $5000 per academic year If you qualify, if the money is released, and if you get your application in by X date each year. It's enough to put you through a trade-school or community college, absolutely. But, it's not going to make anyone wealthy, or provide anyone with immediate and debt-free access to university - don't act like it will.
ALSO - Academic performance has a HUGE bearing on scholarships, fellowships, assistantships and the like. These are how to successfully get your college/university career paid for with no strings attached. Don't confuse aid with loans; they're two separate things. If you are saying that there should be an academic proficiency exam to have access to credit, we just crossed into new and exciting territory.
And I'm going to try to interpret what AC so eloquently stated: It's not that the government can't restrict access to aid and loans. It's the question of WHO gets to decide who has access? Who gets to be the person in charge of Millions and Millions of destinies?
My number one fear isn't a future without privacy - it's a future where we are tracked into careers based on standardized tests. I was told that I shouldn't go to college and I shouldn't really worry about trying to get a job outside of basic hourly retail and food-service. I was tracked through grade-school and high-school into technical programs instead of college prep. ALL because I screwed around on a handful of tests.
Sometimes people need access to money they might not have access to otherwise - it's not about giving the poor an advantage, it's about trying to level the playing field between rich and poor.
Side note - All of that technical crap didn't stick - I have two advanced degrees now and teach at the college and university level. - Sometimes tracking is incorrect!
So, yes, those prices make you a rich son of a bitch.