We agree that the maps are distorted, but the PC-libtards are making it about racism, so we're going to argue for keeping the distorted maps just to fuck with them and throw in some posturing about physical globes for some reason.
But that's literally why. They're going from an apolitically distorted map to a politically distorted map. Change map projections, fine, but give me a reason to do it besides "fuck whitey."
I think APK has a point. Maybe it's time to add slashdot to the hosts file.
I feel like the government could deflate the bubble if they wanted to. Simply keeping limits on the amount of money you can borrow at a federal level and making private loans discharge during bankruptcy and they could probably reverse the growth in tuition rates.
I agree, they could do it, because it's really just a problem with policy and perverse incentives. But the instant a politican proposed changing these rules the media would start hunting around for poor brown people to shove in front of a camera. "If these evil new anti-education rules go into effect then poor Jaquarius here will be shoved out of school and onto the streets to be raped and murdered by klansmen or whatever." You're talking about trillions of dollars worth of debt slaves here. Nobody's going to just let that go.
All that tells you is what the people polled think, not what the rest of the nation thinks.
Yes, and the people polled were the politically active conservatives. Your claim was that people who voted for Trump are now regretting their decision. No they're not. They're very happy with what Trump is doing.
They wanted illegal Mexican rapists deported. Illegal Mexican rapists are being deported. They're very happy.
They wanted TPP killed. TPP is killed. They're very happy.
They wanted conservative Supreme Court justices. Gorsuch got something like a 94% approval rate at CPAC. They're very happy.
They want the Federal bureaucracy gutted. Bannon said at CPAC they're "dismantling the administrative state." The new budget outline shows executive departments slashed. They're very happy.
I could go on and on. You don't like Trump so you want to pretend everyone else doesn't like Trump, even people who voted for him. Wrong.
Generally a conviction requires at least some nod towards intent.
Only if intent is part of the law. It's not part of all laws by default. We really prefer them to be written that way, with a mens rea component, but our lawmakers have gotten shittier and shittier and they write shitty laws now. The laws about mishandling classified information are strict liability. Same as an awful lot of states' laws about, say statutory rape. Nobody cares if you didn't know she was 15, or you didn't intend to sleep with a 15 year old. Did you do it? Yes. Guilty.
There's no mens rea requirement in the law about mishandling classified information. She did the thing. They chose not to prosecute, which is a matter of opinion. If you agree with that opinion, you're probably a Democrat. If you disagree you're probably a Republican.
Education is our only realistic solution to stay ahead of robots and cheap labor
No, because education doesn't really make you any smarter. It has very little effect on intelligence, which is primarily genetic.
We need simple jobs for simple people because no amount of eduction is going to turn the half of the population has an IQ below 100 into scientists and engineers.
Come up with a better plan, maybe, but to say education is a realistic solution to this problem is false. It is not realistic because education does not make people significantly more intelligent.
There's no such thing as "centrist press." Everyone has a bias, and it corresponds to the bias of the owners of the publication. Shockingly enough, the interests of the six mega corporations that own 90% of American media do not coincide with the interests of average Americans in flyover country.
You would think this would be easy enough to understand. Seems fairly obvious. But watching the media this election it seems they can't comprehend that anyone might have different interests than they do. Or if they do, it can only be because of some manifestation of evil.
I'm not laughing. Neither are a lot of people who voted for the sonofabitch, either, and neither are a whole bunch of the GOP.
You're projecting. Trump is doing an amazing job of keeping his campaign promises, and his supporters are very happy about it. They did a straw poll at CPAC and something like 90% of conservatives agreed with what Trump was doing.
Yes, the neocon assholes on TV like Bill Kristol and John McCain are mad. But these are the same people the Trump voters rebelled against because they see them as traitors.
Oh and by the way I'd like to point out that Angela Merkel was called 'Leader of the Free World' by the press last week;
Just like Congress members do not get procecuted for insider trading, or it it Law?
No, by law they're exempt from insider trading rules. I don't think that should be the case, but literally they're exempt. No one is just "deciding" not to prosecute them for something they could be prosecuted for.
Breaking the security practices at work is not a crime unless you do it with malice.
18 USC 1924:
(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].
I don't see anything in there about "malice." You just have to do the thing to be guilty. Whether you're doing the thing maliciously or just for the hell of it is irrelevant.
Hillary did the thing. I don't think there's any dispute about this. Comey chose not to recommend prosecution because shrug.
To say the mercator projection is oppressing people whose ancestors came from continents that look bigger compared to a different projection diminishes the sensitivity people have about allegations of actual racism.
I'm just glad they're finally sticking it to these awful Greenland supremacists and their hate maps.
The end result over some time is that assumptions will be made that people from those regions are simply not as smart.
Incorrect. The only explanation for African underachievement is white oppression. The number of klansmen per square mile in Africa must be astronomical.
I think it's just retarded to imply that the use of the Mercator projection was intended to "diminish" Africa or South America. Grrrrr those Greenland supremacists, always tryin' to keep the Africans down!
But everything's gotta be political these days. Even fucking map projections.
Because with jobs requiring more skill, and the cost of education rises to match said time to teach skills, the cost will continue to rise.
What are these jobs that require more skill? Tech sector jobs, sure, but the bulk of jobs are not in tech. The reason you need a degree to get hired for a call center job is not because call center work has gotten so complex these days.
No, he has to say "evidence of potential violations" because it's up to a court to determine that there were violations.
Saying that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" is legal-speak for saying that he found no provable violations, or in simple language, as far as the legal system is concerned, she's innocent.
No. No, absolutely not. It is not the place of law enforcement to say someone is "innocent." He specifically says there's evidence of violations and you're spinning that into "innocent."
Did Hillary send, receive, create and store classified material on a private server in her bathroom? Yes.
Is that a violation of the law? Yes.
Are they going to prosecute? No.
That is in no way the same as being "innocent." If that's "innocent," then you're okay with any Joe Blow with a security clearance keeping top secret material on a server in their bathroom?
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
There was not a lack of evidence. There was a decision not to act on the evidence.
Is a person with security clearance sending, receiving, creating, and storing classified material on a private server in their bathroom illegal? Yes.
Was Hillary doing that? Yes.
Did they decide to prosecute her for it? No.
There was no trial due to lack of will, not lack of evidence.
So, having government email on a private email server is like jaywalking. It's a minor offence and the law that punishes it carries no real penalties.
No, the analogy was not meant to relate the severity of the crime of jaywalking to the severity of the crime of mishandling classified information. I was just giving an example of the commission of a crime that law enforcement chooses to exercise discretion against prosecuting. These are generally malum prohibitum crimes, not malum in se, because no one would understand an analogy in which the officer decided to let you off with a warning for rape and murder.
So what would colluding with another government to influence the outcome of a presidential election be like? Grand Theft Auto?
I don't know. What law does that break? I mean, we have lots of examples of representatives of other governments influencing our election. Trudeau spoke out for Hillary and against Trump. Was that Canada trying to influence our elections? Nigel Farage spoke at a Trump rally. He's an elected representative of the UK in the EU, is that the UK or the EU influencing our election? Obama went to Britain and spoke against Brexit. Was he colluding with the UK government to influence that referendum?
Assume Putin personally haxx0red the DNC and phished Podesta. What would he need to collude with the Trump campaign for? Clearly Putin would prefer someone who wants to ally with Russia against their common enemy (ISIS/general Islamic jihad) rather than someone who wants to set up a no fly zone for Russian planes over Syria and remove Putin's ally Assad. What's there to collude over? Just hack and release. There's no communication necessary. Assuming Putin was behind the hacking, do you think he would have done the same thing had, say, Rand Paul (also against intervention in Syria) been the nominee instead of Trump?
So, I'd need to know what law specifically (give me the statute numbers, please) you're alleging Trump broke to gauge the severity of the crime.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
So, what she did was wrong and illegal (mishandling of classified documents), and that it's very likely someone doing this would be punished (administrative sanctions like getting fired, losing security clearance, etc). However, in his opinion, they would not be subject to criminal prosecution. And remember this is all the FBI can do...say that there is a case or is not a case. They can't find you guilty as that's the purpose of a trial.
Now, the next point of dispute here would be that the statute surrounding the handling of classified material that she violated doesn't say anything about "intent," so it doesn't matter what she intended by mishandling the classified material, she could still be prosecuted. Your opinion on whether what Hillary did was wrong enough to merit prosecution is likely dependent on whether you vote R or D, but to say Comey and the FBI determined that Hillary did nothing wrong is completely false. It is wrong and illegal for a person with a security clearance to have classified and SAP information on a private server in their bathroom, the FBI says that's what Hillary did, but not so egregiously that it merits prosecution.
Wrong, they said they didn't find any evidence of criminal activities, and recommended closing the investigation.
No, he said she violated the law surrounding the handling of classified materials, but that the punishment for the manner in which she did so would be administrative, like getting fired or having your security clearance revoked. Since she was no longer employed by the government, firing her isn't really an option.
But he absolutely did not say she did nothing wrong. He said she did do something wrong, just not wrong enough to go to jail. If the cop catches you jaywalking and lets you off with a warning instead of a ticket, that doesn't mean you didn't do anything against the law. You did do something against the law: jaywalking. The cop is just choosing not to punish you for the illegal thing you did. Comey and Lynch chose not to pursue punishment against Hillary for the illegal thing she did.
No, the real problem is that the government backs student loans in the US and has essentially no criteria for denying anyone a loan. You're a D student and want a $50,000 loan to study Underwater Basket Weaving? No problem! And the university will absolutely let you in because you're bringing that $50,000 check.
And since you're not really equipped to tell the difference between a quality education and a mediocre education, and it's all pretty well fine anyway (an undergraduate education is pretty much the same reasonable quality at any given state university), you're making your decision about where to go based on the amenities. When I went to college 20 years ago the dorms were little better than minimum security prison cells and the parking authority was run out of a double wide trailer. Today at my alma mater there's a shiny new glass and steel building for the parking administration and the dorms look like condos and there are two "wellness centers" whatever the fuck those are, and the rec facilities are top notch, etc. They've turned the schools into luxury education resorts.
The education isn't any different, but it costs 4 times as much. The only way to end the cycle is for the government to stop giving students so much "free" money, but that will never happen because the University Industrial Complex will nuke any politician who tries as being "against education," and since I'm sure "low income and minority students will be hit hardest" they'll call you racist to boot.
I think the way the education bubble will actually pop is this. "Everybody knows" a diploma is next to meaningless because if you show up with enough money and stick around long enough you get one, and it doesn't mean you actually know the subject. Young people are especially aware of this, and that you can educate yourself just about as well on the internet these days. Someone from the generation that understands this is going to finally get a hiring position at a major company and is going to say "no, we don't want people with college degrees. I want someone who's educated themselves because they knew the college system was a scam. We're going to implement a system to find and hire these self-starters because they will be better employees." This will become all the rage and while that won't do anything about some professions where you MUST have the sheepskin (medicine, law) it will absolutely lay waste to the diploma mills.
And if it wasn't for the PR disasters coming out of Uber on an almost weekly basis now, they would have been obscenely successful in achieving this.
I'm still curious how these PR disasters came to receive such widespread media attention. I've always thought Uber was shit (the "sharing economy" is really the "vulture economy" picking at the bones of a decaying system), but it's not an accident there's a new "Uber is evil and/or collapsing" story every few days on Slashdot. If somebody's digging through your trash, interviewing your 3rd grade teacher, all your ex-girlfriends and your mailman and then spilling every last bit of dirt about you, sure, it's all true, but somebody's clearly out to get you.
But there is no free market. So you can absolutely beat the market if you're running the government. Microsoft demands cheap foreign labor because "free market!" but if I want to use the free market to bootleg copies of Microsoft Office they run to the government to "protect intellectual property."
It's all government control, so pick your poison. A reasonable* approach would balance the interests of capital (yes, we'll protect your intellectual property) with those of labor (but you can't fuck American workers to get cheap foreigners). Right now the rules are all for capital and shit for labor, but that's no "free market."
* By "reasonable" I mean for normal people, not for Slashdot free software ideologues.
Is there any evidence WikiLeaks has received Russian or Chinese leaks and then not published them? WikiLeaks is not the only game in town. If Russians or Chinese were sending info to WikiLeaks that they were sitting on because WikiLeaks is somehow pro-Russia or pro-China, then those leakers would send the info to the NY Times (or self-publish somewhere) along with the bombshell that WikiLeaks refuses to publish their shit.
Hmmm. You know, SwashbucklingCowboy hasn't released any dirt on Russia or China either. Just who are you working for, SwashbucklingCowboy?!?
Slashdot Mirror
We agree that the maps are distorted, but the PC-libtards are making it about racism, so we're going to argue for keeping the distorted maps just to fuck with them and throw in some posturing about physical globes for some reason.
But that's literally why. They're going from an apolitically distorted map to a politically distorted map. Change map projections, fine, but give me a reason to do it besides "fuck whitey."
I think APK has a point. Maybe it's time to add slashdot to the hosts file.
You're not fooling anyone APK.
I feel like the government could deflate the bubble if they wanted to. Simply keeping limits on the amount of money you can borrow at a federal level and making private loans discharge during bankruptcy and they could probably reverse the growth in tuition rates.
I agree, they could do it, because it's really just a problem with policy and perverse incentives. But the instant a politican proposed changing these rules the media would start hunting around for poor brown people to shove in front of a camera. "If these evil new anti-education rules go into effect then poor Jaquarius here will be shoved out of school and onto the streets to be raped and murdered by klansmen or whatever." You're talking about trillions of dollars worth of debt slaves here. Nobody's going to just let that go.
All that tells you is what the people polled think, not what the rest of the nation thinks.
Yes, and the people polled were the politically active conservatives. Your claim was that people who voted for Trump are now regretting their decision. No they're not. They're very happy with what Trump is doing.
They wanted illegal Mexican rapists deported. Illegal Mexican rapists are being deported. They're very happy.
They wanted TPP killed. TPP is killed. They're very happy.
They wanted conservative Supreme Court justices. Gorsuch got something like a 94% approval rate at CPAC. They're very happy.
They want the Federal bureaucracy gutted. Bannon said at CPAC they're "dismantling the administrative state." The new budget outline shows executive departments slashed. They're very happy.
I could go on and on. You don't like Trump so you want to pretend everyone else doesn't like Trump, even people who voted for him. Wrong.
Generally a conviction requires at least some nod towards intent.
Only if intent is part of the law. It's not part of all laws by default. We really prefer them to be written that way, with a mens rea component, but our lawmakers have gotten shittier and shittier and they write shitty laws now. The laws about mishandling classified information are strict liability. Same as an awful lot of states' laws about, say statutory rape. Nobody cares if you didn't know she was 15, or you didn't intend to sleep with a 15 year old. Did you do it? Yes. Guilty.
There's no mens rea requirement in the law about mishandling classified information. She did the thing. They chose not to prosecute, which is a matter of opinion. If you agree with that opinion, you're probably a Democrat. If you disagree you're probably a Republican.
Education is our only realistic solution to stay ahead of robots and cheap labor
No, because education doesn't really make you any smarter. It has very little effect on intelligence, which is primarily genetic.
We need simple jobs for simple people because no amount of eduction is going to turn the half of the population has an IQ below 100 into scientists and engineers.
Come up with a better plan, maybe, but to say education is a realistic solution to this problem is false. It is not realistic because education does not make people significantly more intelligent.
There's no such thing as "centrist press." Everyone has a bias, and it corresponds to the bias of the owners of the publication. Shockingly enough, the interests of the six mega corporations that own 90% of American media do not coincide with the interests of average Americans in flyover country.
You would think this would be easy enough to understand. Seems fairly obvious. But watching the media this election it seems they can't comprehend that anyone might have different interests than they do. Or if they do, it can only be because of some manifestation of evil.
I'm not laughing. Neither are a lot of people who voted for the sonofabitch, either, and neither are a whole bunch of the GOP.
You're projecting. Trump is doing an amazing job of keeping his campaign promises, and his supporters are very happy about it. They did a straw poll at CPAC and something like 90% of conservatives agreed with what Trump was doing.
Yes, the neocon assholes on TV like Bill Kristol and John McCain are mad. But these are the same people the Trump voters rebelled against because they see them as traitors.
Oh and by the way I'd like to point out that Angela Merkel was called 'Leader of the Free World' by the press last week;
Who the hell cares? Fuck the press.
Just like Congress members do not get procecuted for insider trading, or it it Law?
No, by law they're exempt from insider trading rules. I don't think that should be the case, but literally they're exempt. No one is just "deciding" not to prosecute them for something they could be prosecuted for.
No she violated the rules
That "rule" is a federal law.
Breaking the security practices at work is not a crime unless you do it with malice.
18 USC 1924:
(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].
I don't see anything in there about "malice." You just have to do the thing to be guilty. Whether you're doing the thing maliciously or just for the hell of it is irrelevant.
Hillary did the thing. I don't think there's any dispute about this. Comey chose not to recommend prosecution because shrug.
To say the mercator projection is oppressing people whose ancestors came from continents that look bigger compared to a different projection diminishes the sensitivity people have about allegations of actual racism.
I'm just glad they're finally sticking it to these awful Greenland supremacists and their hate maps.
The end result over some time is that assumptions will be made that people from those regions are simply not as smart.
Incorrect. The only explanation for African underachievement is white oppression. The number of klansmen per square mile in Africa must be astronomical.
I think it's just retarded to imply that the use of the Mercator projection was intended to "diminish" Africa or South America. Grrrrr those Greenland supremacists, always tryin' to keep the Africans down!
But everything's gotta be political these days. Even fucking map projections.
Because with jobs requiring more skill, and the cost of education rises to match said time to teach skills, the cost will continue to rise.
What are these jobs that require more skill? Tech sector jobs, sure, but the bulk of jobs are not in tech. The reason you need a degree to get hired for a call center job is not because call center work has gotten so complex these days.
with Donald Trump's policies forecast to deepen the country's social crisis.
Gosh I'll be so sad when all the illegal Mexican rapists are deported!
No, he has to say "evidence of potential violations" because it's up to a court to determine that there were violations.
Saying that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" is legal-speak for saying that he found no provable violations, or in simple language, as far as the legal system is concerned, she's innocent.
No. No, absolutely not. It is not the place of law enforcement to say someone is "innocent." He specifically says there's evidence of violations and you're spinning that into "innocent."
Did Hillary send, receive, create and store classified material on a private server in her bathroom? Yes.
Is that a violation of the law? Yes.
Are they going to prosecute? No.
That is in no way the same as being "innocent." If that's "innocent," then you're okay with any Joe Blow with a security clearance keeping top secret material on a server in their bathroom?
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
There was not a lack of evidence. There was a decision not to act on the evidence.
Is a person with security clearance sending, receiving, creating, and storing classified material on a private server in their bathroom illegal? Yes.
Was Hillary doing that? Yes.
Did they decide to prosecute her for it? No.
There was no trial due to lack of will, not lack of evidence.
So, having government email on a private email server is like jaywalking. It's a minor offence and the law that punishes it carries no real penalties.
No, the analogy was not meant to relate the severity of the crime of jaywalking to the severity of the crime of mishandling classified information. I was just giving an example of the commission of a crime that law enforcement chooses to exercise discretion against prosecuting. These are generally malum prohibitum crimes, not malum in se, because no one would understand an analogy in which the officer decided to let you off with a warning for rape and murder.
So what would colluding with another government to influence the outcome of a presidential election be like? Grand Theft Auto?
I don't know. What law does that break? I mean, we have lots of examples of representatives of other governments influencing our election. Trudeau spoke out for Hillary and against Trump. Was that Canada trying to influence our elections? Nigel Farage spoke at a Trump rally. He's an elected representative of the UK in the EU, is that the UK or the EU influencing our election? Obama went to Britain and spoke against Brexit. Was he colluding with the UK government to influence that referendum?
Assume Putin personally haxx0red the DNC and phished Podesta. What would he need to collude with the Trump campaign for? Clearly Putin would prefer someone who wants to ally with Russia against their common enemy (ISIS/general Islamic jihad) rather than someone who wants to set up a no fly zone for Russian planes over Syria and remove Putin's ally Assad. What's there to collude over? Just hack and release. There's no communication necessary. Assuming Putin was behind the hacking, do you think he would have done the same thing had, say, Rand Paul (also against intervention in Syria) been the nominee instead of Trump?
So, I'd need to know what law specifically (give me the statute numbers, please) you're alleging Trump broke to gauge the severity of the crime.
Do you think American universities are teaching "advanced critical thinking skills?"
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
The relevant part:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
So, what she did was wrong and illegal (mishandling of classified documents), and that it's very likely someone doing this would be punished (administrative sanctions like getting fired, losing security clearance, etc). However, in his opinion, they would not be subject to criminal prosecution. And remember this is all the FBI can do...say that there is a case or is not a case. They can't find you guilty as that's the purpose of a trial.
Now, the next point of dispute here would be that the statute surrounding the handling of classified material that she violated doesn't say anything about "intent," so it doesn't matter what she intended by mishandling the classified material, she could still be prosecuted. Your opinion on whether what Hillary did was wrong enough to merit prosecution is likely dependent on whether you vote R or D, but to say Comey and the FBI determined that Hillary did nothing wrong is completely false. It is wrong and illegal for a person with a security clearance to have classified and SAP information on a private server in their bathroom, the FBI says that's what Hillary did, but not so egregiously that it merits prosecution.
Wrong, they said they didn't find any evidence of criminal activities, and recommended closing the investigation.
No, he said she violated the law surrounding the handling of classified materials, but that the punishment for the manner in which she did so would be administrative, like getting fired or having your security clearance revoked. Since she was no longer employed by the government, firing her isn't really an option.
But he absolutely did not say she did nothing wrong. He said she did do something wrong, just not wrong enough to go to jail. If the cop catches you jaywalking and lets you off with a warning instead of a ticket, that doesn't mean you didn't do anything against the law. You did do something against the law: jaywalking. The cop is just choosing not to punish you for the illegal thing you did. Comey and Lynch chose not to pursue punishment against Hillary for the illegal thing she did.
In the US your (or rather, your parents') wallet.
No, the real problem is that the government backs student loans in the US and has essentially no criteria for denying anyone a loan. You're a D student and want a $50,000 loan to study Underwater Basket Weaving? No problem! And the university will absolutely let you in because you're bringing that $50,000 check.
And since you're not really equipped to tell the difference between a quality education and a mediocre education, and it's all pretty well fine anyway (an undergraduate education is pretty much the same reasonable quality at any given state university), you're making your decision about where to go based on the amenities. When I went to college 20 years ago the dorms were little better than minimum security prison cells and the parking authority was run out of a double wide trailer. Today at my alma mater there's a shiny new glass and steel building for the parking administration and the dorms look like condos and there are two "wellness centers" whatever the fuck those are, and the rec facilities are top notch, etc. They've turned the schools into luxury education resorts.
The education isn't any different, but it costs 4 times as much. The only way to end the cycle is for the government to stop giving students so much "free" money, but that will never happen because the University Industrial Complex will nuke any politician who tries as being "against education," and since I'm sure "low income and minority students will be hit hardest" they'll call you racist to boot.
I think the way the education bubble will actually pop is this. "Everybody knows" a diploma is next to meaningless because if you show up with enough money and stick around long enough you get one, and it doesn't mean you actually know the subject. Young people are especially aware of this, and that you can educate yourself just about as well on the internet these days. Someone from the generation that understands this is going to finally get a hiring position at a major company and is going to say "no, we don't want people with college degrees. I want someone who's educated themselves because they knew the college system was a scam. We're going to implement a system to find and hire these self-starters because they will be better employees." This will become all the rage and while that won't do anything about some professions where you MUST have the sheepskin (medicine, law) it will absolutely lay waste to the diploma mills.
claimed Hillary didn't violate any laws
Incorrect. He said she did break the law, but he didn't recommend prosecuting her for it.
And if it wasn't for the PR disasters coming out of Uber on an almost weekly basis now, they would have been obscenely successful in achieving this.
I'm still curious how these PR disasters came to receive such widespread media attention. I've always thought Uber was shit (the "sharing economy" is really the "vulture economy" picking at the bones of a decaying system), but it's not an accident there's a new "Uber is evil and/or collapsing" story every few days on Slashdot. If somebody's digging through your trash, interviewing your 3rd grade teacher, all your ex-girlfriends and your mailman and then spilling every last bit of dirt about you, sure, it's all true, but somebody's clearly out to get you.
You can't beat the free market
But there is no free market. So you can absolutely beat the market if you're running the government. Microsoft demands cheap foreign labor because "free market!" but if I want to use the free market to bootleg copies of Microsoft Office they run to the government to "protect intellectual property."
It's all government control, so pick your poison. A reasonable* approach would balance the interests of capital (yes, we'll protect your intellectual property) with those of labor (but you can't fuck American workers to get cheap foreigners). Right now the rules are all for capital and shit for labor, but that's no "free market."
* By "reasonable" I mean for normal people, not for Slashdot free software ideologues.
Is there any evidence WikiLeaks has received Russian or Chinese leaks and then not published them? WikiLeaks is not the only game in town. If Russians or Chinese were sending info to WikiLeaks that they were sitting on because WikiLeaks is somehow pro-Russia or pro-China, then those leakers would send the info to the NY Times (or self-publish somewhere) along with the bombshell that WikiLeaks refuses to publish their shit.
Hmmm. You know, SwashbucklingCowboy hasn't released any dirt on Russia or China either. Just who are you working for, SwashbucklingCowboy?!?