Again, putting up what collateral? This isn't a credit worthiness issue, its a credit security issue. When your parents co-sign for a loan there's still collateral -- be it the home or the car or whatever, you benefit from their credit rating, not their security interest. There's a reason credit cards charge high interest, that's unsecured debt, unsecured debts are risk, so they get to take more money off you for the capitalizing your pizza / video game / whatever purchases.
Further this does nothing to help smooth the economic inequality that federal loans were originally designed to fix. It, in fact, serves to chain you down with the financial mistakes and failings of your parents. Smart kid with a mom and dad that didn't get to go to college and got foreclosed out of a home? Tough break kid. Coal mine's that-a-way. (that would be a bad outcome).
Certainly, if the government was out of the student-loan-business, that would make room for actual businesses to take up the slack.
In so stating you reveal that you no absolutely nothing about how federal loans work. Federal loans are issued by private institutions, and guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The Federal government is the collateral, not the source of the loan.
Likewise, if the colleges didn't have a blank check in front of them, maybe tuition would become affordable, making the loans much smaller and the financing easier to obtain.
This is the one part of the argument I agree with. The availability of student loans drives up the price of college. The cost of reducing loan availability is the LOSS of college access. I'm okay with that, to a degree, but you need to be honest and transparent when you take the position that driving poor kids out of college is a feature, not a bug, of the system you propose.
It's a cascade of changes all resulting from the elimination of one federal agency. How much private sector business is taken by federal agencies that can lose money year-after-year?
Government doesn't "lose money" it spends money. Government does things that are, by their nature, not profitable. Like bridge building and maintaining public parks. Protecting 12 year olds from serial rapists. Patrolling the streets at midnight to keep your home from getting broken into. Running prisons. Making sure your food isn't poisoned more than 1 time in 1,000,000 (and aiming for better). Likewise, no one is going to issue Joe All-star a student loan just because he got a perfect SAT score and 4.0ed his honors chemistry class. That's not something the banks can take from Joe when Joe decides to be an author or, horror of horrors, a marine. I could propose solutions -- the colleges could, for example, offer bonds in guarantee of their loans -- that would give them a stronger interest in the actual qualifications and success of their students, since the college would take the hit when the loan collapse -- but you know, that is so strongly prejudicial against the schools that a market solution would, most likely, just be to charge fewer students more. That is, to secure education as a product marketed exclusively at those whose parents can take out a second mortgage or pay tuition in cash. But again, you better be up-front and honest about your intentions to fuck the poor. Because, when Ron Paul talks about unrestrained freedom, mostly he's talking about the freedom to fail and die.
Wellfare, as an institution which would pay for your needs over a term longer than 3-5 years, ended under Clinton.
Here's a curious question -- how are you going to get a social security check if you never worked? You (or your spouse) have to earn work credits to get a check.
As someone who has "benefited" from over 60K in student loans -- I agree.
We really need to adjust our viewpoint on schools. There is no check on college cost at this point. The math, for the student, suggests that with only a very few exceptions you will profit tremendously for every year of college you take. The justifiable expense is astronomical -- but the supply of willing students is vastly inflated by the easy availability of student loans. Strike out federally guaranteed student loans (or, only make them available to folks who come from the bottom quintile of financial backgrounds) and you will drive down demand for education markedly. That might actually start the process of deflating tuition.
Or, we can keep locking people into 10 year service contracts after school. I know for me, that basically foreclosed any entrepreneurial or public service employment opportunities (outside of the handful my law school subsidies by offering student loan forgiveness programs e.g. public defender / prosecutors -- that, plus the state of the legal industry, drove a lot of kids with great pedigrees into those programs. There is good in nearly everything . . . but I'd rather if the school/reality made offering supplemental income rather than loan forgiveness practical/desireable).
"Drugs" (in this context) is what we call a substance which affects your thinking, thus to make a drug illegal is literally not figuratively thought-crime.
1) Gov't Research reaps massive returns on growth, which spurs gov't income through growth (rather than higher taxes). Look at the moon mission, indirectly responsible for everything from plastic to palm-top computing. 2) For gov't institutions to be efficient they need to be run by talented and reasonably motivated people. Shitting on gov't as wasteful and "the problem" every two years in order to gin up bullshit and votes -- not a winning governance strategy.
The Federal Government has a constitutional mandate to regulate interstate and international commerce. But hey, fuck that right? Pass me a heroine needle and that copy of Atlas Shrugged, it's Ron Paul's world now.
You could read his statement that way, or, you could read it as an admission that they simply developed technology without reference to Apple's patents and were surprised to find out these obvious technologies and algorithms were patented.
Incidentally, all of the items you list -- those aren't patent violations, at best they're trademark issues.
Not "the legal system." The legal system is the set of laws, the rules of the court and the judge. The legal system is likely to look dimly on that argument. You are, however, certainly correct that Apple's lawyers will make that argument. Hell, I probably would too.
I think the strong hand response would be to attack the validity of the patents. I believe that's what Samsung is doing in the EU.
Or that they can make more money doing just-in-time trading on the money markets. Because lord knows banks always turn away a profit when the country's leader is picking on them.
All of which is nice, and totally irrelevant to the meaning of the word "law" here. This isn't a criminal statute, its an enabling statute that gives the federal goverment and law enforcement the positive power to go out and collect some information. We actually know what the law *is* we just don't know how the DoJ has interpreted the law. They keep using the "war on terror" card to scare the courts out of examining too closely means and methods used by the NSA / CIA / FBI / Homeland in collecting data for "terror" cases.
We know that something is wrong because two of the senators given oversight over intelligence actions have raised a red flag that the gov't (Bush and Obama administrations) is doing something beyond what/those senators/ think the law allows. Its likely that once this information comes out it will be both (a) revolting to everyone from dyed in the red commies to facist pukes . . . but also (b) close enough to what congress stupidly allowed after 9/11 that nothing criminal has actually occurred.
This is a reminder -- running in fear into the arms of expansive police powers was always stupid. It was stupid in 1776, it's stupid today.
an obnoxious 13 year old!? OMG WTF!? Never would have seen that coming.
Really though, I'd vote for a combination of computer aided math and science education with as much exposure to college seminars on history, philosophy and the social sciences as he can stand to sit through. IMHO, the trick to producing a keen intellect is to marry knowledge (i.e. theorems) with the ability to think both vertically (apply knowledge in the expected manner) and laterally (take what you know about A to reconsider what we know about B and C).
Of course, that's alot like saying "World peace is easy: just take away all the guns."
You are confusing evidence that contradicts your position with bullshit.
If 99,999 other people have one experience (note: that's just 99,999 anecdotes, but whatever, you're argument has bigger holes) then that one outlier is STILL relevant. The massive weight of the evidence rests with the 99,999 anecdotes, but they don't make the 1 counter-example cease to exist merely because the cult of statistics says we can't reference individual experience anymore. It's loony and it has no basis in reality to believe that what 1 individual experiences becomes irrelevant as a point of evidence simply because it doesn't conform to expectations.
Anecdotes are fun stories you tell at parties to entertain people. Data is what you use when you actually want to make a sound decision.
Lawyer: Please describe what you saw on the night of October 1, 2011.
Witness: That man [points at Defendant] entered my bar and shot John Jones in the chest three times.
See -- that is both an anecdote, and undeniably, it is evidence of a particular event. Individual events happen and, like statistical facts, they don't always come in context. However, the anecdote is still real, it is still evidence, it still matters. The cult of the statistic is dumb. It needs to go away.
You do one change at a time, verify the change works as expected, and then move to the next one.
Good luck rolling out new products "one change at a time." Our healthcare system isn't in need of modest modernization (of the kind that in an IT system would allow you to make one change at a time to your production system). Also -- just a point of order -- law is not the same thing as IT management -- you do that in IT because you can actually see and agree upon the results of the changes to those small and usually independent production environments. With laws you make a change, things happen, and then the idealogues spin that shit three ways from sunday. "Lowering taxes creates jobs, see the Clinton administration." "No, lowering taxes destroys jobs, see the Bush administration." "No, lowering taxes has no effect on job creation -- see the Obama administration." None of those statements is false, and none of them prove a god damn thing.
Also, please stop being a dumbass. The plural of anecdote is not data. [freakonomics.com]
Anecdotes are evidence. They're not useful in terms of statistical and economic analysis, but that doesn't make "I saw A happen" any less a fact or any less relevant to a debate on issues. This devotion to the concept that only statistical facts matter anymore is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, Good Old DRD Department. What would we do without them?
-GiH
Then nothing would get done!
Again, putting up what collateral? This isn't a credit worthiness issue, its a credit security issue. When your parents co-sign for a loan there's still collateral -- be it the home or the car or whatever, you benefit from their credit rating, not their security interest. There's a reason credit cards charge high interest, that's unsecured debt, unsecured debts are risk, so they get to take more money off you for the capitalizing your pizza / video game / whatever purchases.
Further this does nothing to help smooth the economic inequality that federal loans were originally designed to fix. It, in fact, serves to chain you down with the financial mistakes and failings of your parents. Smart kid with a mom and dad that didn't get to go to college and got foreclosed out of a home? Tough break kid. Coal mine's that-a-way. (that would be a bad outcome).
In so stating you reveal that you no absolutely nothing about how federal loans work. Federal loans are issued by private institutions, and guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The Federal government is the collateral, not the source of the loan.
This is the one part of the argument I agree with. The availability of student loans drives up the price of college. The cost of reducing loan availability is the LOSS of college access. I'm okay with that, to a degree, but you need to be honest and transparent when you take the position that driving poor kids out of college is a feature, not a bug, of the system you propose.
Government doesn't "lose money" it spends money. Government does things that are, by their nature, not profitable. Like bridge building and maintaining public parks. Protecting 12 year olds from serial rapists. Patrolling the streets at midnight to keep your home from getting broken into. Running prisons. Making sure your food isn't poisoned more than 1 time in 1,000,000 (and aiming for better). Likewise, no one is going to issue Joe All-star a student loan just because he got a perfect SAT score and 4.0ed his honors chemistry class. That's not something the banks can take from Joe when Joe decides to be an author or, horror of horrors, a marine. I could propose solutions -- the colleges could, for example, offer bonds in guarantee of their loans -- that would give them a stronger interest in the actual qualifications and success of their students, since the college would take the hit when the loan collapse -- but you know, that is so strongly prejudicial against the schools that a market solution would, most likely, just be to charge fewer students more. That is, to secure education as a product marketed exclusively at those whose parents can take out a second mortgage or pay tuition in cash. But again, you better be up-front and honest about your intentions to fuck the poor. Because, when Ron Paul talks about unrestrained freedom, mostly he's talking about the freedom to fail and die.
-GiH
So the grunts in the military can properly arm and deploy modern weaponry. Generally DoD is one of the bigger supporters of guaranteed education.
-GiH
Wellfare, as an institution which would pay for your needs over a term longer than 3-5 years, ended under Clinton.
Here's a curious question -- how are you going to get a social security check if you never worked? You (or your spouse) have to earn work credits to get a check.
-GiH
Not at current tuition rates.
You put up the car / house / TV as collateral on that traditional financing.
What do you suggest a college student put up as collateral -- maybe a liver?
-GiH
As someone who has "benefited" from over 60K in student loans -- I agree.
We really need to adjust our viewpoint on schools. There is no check on college cost at this point. The math, for the student, suggests that with only a very few exceptions you will profit tremendously for every year of college you take. The justifiable expense is astronomical -- but the supply of willing students is vastly inflated by the easy availability of student loans. Strike out federally guaranteed student loans (or, only make them available to folks who come from the bottom quintile of financial backgrounds) and you will drive down demand for education markedly. That might actually start the process of deflating tuition.
Or, we can keep locking people into 10 year service contracts after school. I know for me, that basically foreclosed any entrepreneurial or public service employment opportunities (outside of the handful my law school subsidies by offering student loan forgiveness programs e.g. public defender / prosecutors -- that, plus the state of the legal industry, drove a lot of kids with great pedigrees into those programs. There is good in nearly everything . . . but I'd rather if the school/reality made offering supplemental income rather than loan forgiveness practical/desireable).
-GiH
whining is for losers. Politics is hardball. No need to apologize for throwing "shit" at your opponent.
No doubt he's pressuring the stingray makers for contributions.
Please google "literally."
-GiH
All sales of goods imply a verbal contract.
1) Gov't Research reaps massive returns on growth, which spurs gov't income through growth (rather than higher taxes). Look at the moon mission, indirectly responsible for everything from plastic to palm-top computing. 2) For gov't institutions to be efficient they need to be run by talented and reasonably motivated people. Shitting on gov't as wasteful and "the problem" every two years in order to gin up bullshit and votes -- not a winning governance strategy.
-GiH
The Federal Government has a constitutional mandate to regulate interstate and international commerce. But hey, fuck that right? Pass me a heroine needle and that copy of Atlas Shrugged, it's Ron Paul's world now.
-GiH
You could read his statement that way, or, you could read it as an admission that they simply developed technology without reference to Apple's patents and were surprised to find out these obvious technologies and algorithms were patented.
Incidentally, all of the items you list -- those aren't patent violations, at best they're trademark issues.
-GiH
Not "the legal system." The legal system is the set of laws, the rules of the court and the judge. The legal system is likely to look dimly on that argument. You are, however, certainly correct that Apple's lawyers will make that argument. Hell, I probably would too.
I think the strong hand response would be to attack the validity of the patents. I believe that's what Samsung is doing in the EU.
-GiH
Or that they can make more money doing just-in-time trading on the money markets. Because lord knows banks always turn away a profit when the country's leader is picking on them.
All of which is nice, and totally irrelevant to the meaning of the word "law" here. This isn't a criminal statute, its an enabling statute that gives the federal goverment and law enforcement the positive power to go out and collect some information. We actually know what the law *is* we just don't know how the DoJ has interpreted the law. They keep using the "war on terror" card to scare the courts out of examining too closely means and methods used by the NSA / CIA / FBI / Homeland in collecting data for "terror" cases.
/those senators/ think the law allows. Its likely that once this information comes out it will be both (a) revolting to everyone from dyed in the red commies to facist pukes . . . but also (b) close enough to what congress stupidly allowed after 9/11 that nothing criminal has actually occurred.
We know that something is wrong because two of the senators given oversight over intelligence actions have raised a red flag that the gov't (Bush and Obama administrations) is doing something beyond what
This is a reminder -- running in fear into the arms of expansive police powers was always stupid. It was stupid in 1776, it's stupid today.
-GiH
Tried getting a business loan recently? Try again friend.
-GiH
an obnoxious 13 year old!? OMG WTF!? Never would have seen that coming.
Really though, I'd vote for a combination of computer aided math and science education with as much exposure to college seminars on history, philosophy and the social sciences as he can stand to sit through. IMHO, the trick to producing a keen intellect is to marry knowledge (i.e. theorems) with the ability to think both vertically (apply knowledge in the expected manner) and laterally (take what you know about A to reconsider what we know about B and C).
Of course, that's alot like saying "World peace is easy: just take away all the guns."
-GiH
You are confusing evidence that contradicts your position with bullshit.
If 99,999 other people have one experience (note: that's just 99,999 anecdotes, but whatever, you're argument has bigger holes) then that one outlier is STILL relevant. The massive weight of the evidence rests with the 99,999 anecdotes, but they don't make the 1 counter-example cease to exist merely because the cult of statistics says we can't reference individual experience anymore. It's loony and it has no basis in reality to believe that what 1 individual experiences becomes irrelevant as a point of evidence simply because it doesn't conform to expectations.
-GiH
Lawyer: Please describe what you saw on the night of October 1, 2011.
Witness: That man [points at Defendant] entered my bar and shot John Jones in the chest three times.
See -- that is both an anecdote, and undeniably, it is evidence of a particular event. Individual events happen and, like statistical facts, they don't always come in context. However, the anecdote is still real, it is still evidence, it still matters. The cult of the statistic is dumb. It needs to go away.
-GiH
Good luck rolling out new products "one change at a time." Our healthcare system isn't in need of modest modernization (of the kind that in an IT system would allow you to make one change at a time to your production system). Also -- just a point of order -- law is not the same thing as IT management -- you do that in IT because you can actually see and agree upon the results of the changes to those small and usually independent production environments. With laws you make a change, things happen, and then the idealogues spin that shit three ways from sunday. "Lowering taxes creates jobs, see the Clinton administration." "No, lowering taxes destroys jobs, see the Bush administration." "No, lowering taxes has no effect on job creation -- see the Obama administration." None of those statements is false, and none of them prove a god damn thing.
Anecdotes are evidence. They're not useful in terms of statistical and economic analysis, but that doesn't make "I saw A happen" any less a fact or any less relevant to a debate on issues. This devotion to the concept that only statistical facts matter anymore is absurd.
-GiH
You mean logical fallacies or rhetorical fallacies.
e.g. Affirming the consequent == logical fallacy. Argument ad Personam == rhetorical fallacy.
Generally, logical fallacies are actually worth learning, while a focus on rhetorical fallacies tends to lead to a duel of "who is arguing wrong."
Logical fallacies are in "basic logic" rhetorical fallacies are part of "critical thinking."
Remember: When you wind up fighting about process, the status quo wins.
-GiH
So THAT'S why all those gangbangers are so nice to each other all the time. . . oh wait. Nevermind.
-GiH