Either that, or they would more actively recruit foreign students. There have already been news stories of state funded schools preferring foreign students because they don't have to give them the in-state discount rate.
Simple to fix. Forbid it at the State level for State schools. I'm fairly sure the charters of most State universities specifically say they are there to provide education for State residents. It is a small step for State legislatures to restrict the percentage of foreign students enrolled.
No, it doesn't work that way. First initialization is sort of a manual process. It is actually a fairly secure process and not really open to malware circumvention. Possible, yes. Complicated, convoluted and highly unlikely, yes.
You are correct in that it doesn't suit my needs. However, several laptops do in that they have TPM chips included, but uninitialized. You can initialize them and create the keys. This is optimal.
I really don't mind the government mandating having a lock -- so long as *I* and not *they* have the key.
Easily, if you hold the keys. The trick is the keys that sign the boot image need to be in your control.
Google does this with their CR-48 Chromebook. It will only boot Google-signed images. But, there is a small switch in the battery compartment to put it into developer mode where it'll boot any image.
I *LIKE* TPM, as long as I generate the signing keys for the images. Then it'll boot what *I* tell it, and not necessarily what MS or the gov't, or anyone else tell it to.
It ensure that *I* can trust my computer. Screw what they want to trust.
Don't be so sure. A pure electric engine will most likely spank your ass in that situation. They apply 100% of the torque, 100% of the time. IC engines have a power curve that is much different.
Take a look at the issues Tesla had in getting a transmission in their Roadster. It was screamingly fast off the line, but too hard on the components to make it reliable in the long term. The end result is only one gear on that car.
If you're interested in tearing around at auto shows, see what you can do to get a multi-gear transmission in an electric hot rod. You'll run rings around the petrol burners.
Read my post again, and try and come up with an original response instead of just a pithy (unattributed) quote.
I wasn't objecting to taxes. I was objecting to the disconnect in the understanding of the relationship between taxes and government services. My objection was to categorizing the services provided as "free", and the entitlement mentality it fosters.
The government could just purchase land for the creation of military bases?
Sorry, that isn't how it is supposed to be read. Considering one of the primary authors of the document is Thomas Jefferson. The same Thomas Jefferson who finagled it to allow him to make the Louisiana Purchase -- though not without debate on the issue.
We'd also have to give Alaska back. And what about land acquired through conquest and treaty, like what we took from Mexico and what was ceded from Britain, Spain and Mexico?
The NPS was created by the clause that allows them to make laws to regulate the Federally owned lands. The acquisition of the land would be the only hiccup.
It took me quite a few years for me to fully grok this. The reason is very simple.
Most people don't use logic, they use emotion to think. They start with the conclusion they want and work backwards to come up with the path to get there -- even if the path is invalid.
Keep an ear out for the words "should" and "deserve" in a conversation. Both are indications of faulty thought patterns.
"Should" comes up a lot in people saying "it should work that way". Which is shorthand for, "it doesn't work that way, but I want it to so I'll act as if it does and blame everyone else for when I fail".
"Deserve" is simpler. Replace it with "earn" and see if the sentence still holds up.
I have that discussion with my wife a lot. She says "but it should work that way" and my retort is, "yes, but it DOESN'T and we have to deal with the way it really works and not the way you want it to."
No one was arguing for no government. Ron Paul argues for a government limited to the powers granted by the Constitution.
Freight rail is what I was talking about, and it is *not* heavily subsidized by the government. Amtrak is passenger rail.
I can't separate out airline passenger vs freight for subsidies, and an argument could easily be made that the feds didn't need to provide airport subsidies for freight, but it would be weak.
Sorry, I'm not going to rise to a 75-year old argument with you. This is essentially the "rail vs roads" argument all over again.
A very credible case can be made for you being wrong, at least in regard to long-haul trucking versus rail freight/barge shipping.
I agree the Interstate System improved personal travel and helped open vast areas of the country to commercialization. However, the road system is also specifically authorized in the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 7)
You're not an American, so the implied context is lost on you. Sorry, I'll clarify.
Ron Paul is a fairly staunch Libertarian, but not an Anarchist. His objection isn't to government, but rather to the doing the things our Constitution explicitly says is the responsibilities of the States.
The idea being the closer the government is to the people (and visa versa), the more responsive it will be. And, in turn, the more participatory they can be.
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
That one gives the Congress the authority to create National Parks, as long as the State the park is in agrees. In some cases, parks were created out of Federally owned land before any State existed there.
The next paragraph gives them the authority to create the National Park Service, which they did in 1916.
Both the NOAA and FEMA can easily be read in under Paragraph 1 of that same section:
...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
If FEMA isn't "the general Welfare", I don't know what is.
NOAA services are not free, they are paid for by taxes. TANSTAAFL. The fact that you call them "free" means you've stopped associating government services with the costs incurred through taxation.
This is one of the big problems. Too many people think of government services as "free" because there is no direct association with the taxes required to pay for them. The true costs are hidden, so people make foolish decisions because they don't see a cost.
Bell Labs was a premier research institution when their largest customer was the U.S. Government, and specifically the War Department -- which is what it was called back in the day.
It could be done, but the culture of corporations is "show me the money". They're interested in immediate profits and short-term ROI. They are NOT interested in fundamental research and long-term roadmaps.
Bell Labs being a specific example of that. When Lucent merged with Alcatel the CEO of Lucent said basically, "if you can't productize it within 7 years, shelve it. We don't do basic research like that any more."
Considering the shipping (sea & barge), air, freight rail and trucking industries in the United States aren't government built or maintained, you might want to reconsider that. Regulated, yes. Built and maintained, no.
Yes, the roads are, but believe it or not, stuff got shipped and delivered before the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways got built. And many of the roads in this country are still built and maintained with city, county and State funds.
Actually, it isn't all your fault. Most rests on your parents, for forcing you into the potentially (and eventually) untenable situation.
I know it isn't nice to speak ill of the dead, and that they meant well, but the fact remains they essentially forced you into that situation.
Part of the problem is our culture that places such a high value on brand-name education. It has been my experience that the majority of the "education" received depends on the student much more so than the school or teacher. Going to Harvard or Yale, for example, is done for the connections you make, not necessarily the education you get.
And how are you going to garnish wages if someone is unemployed (or even severely underemployed)?
Patience, grasshopper, patience. Eventually, even if it is 20 years down the road, the vast majority will get a job. At that time, the garnishments will apply. Remember, when you enter the mainstream workforce you pay income tax and there is social security withholding. The government knows when you have enough for them to tap you on your shoulder and put its hand deeper in your pocket.
I got news for you, short of dying, they won't get out of paying those debts back. Federally backed student loans are a class of debt that is nigh unto impossible to get forgiven or written off. In most cases, bankruptcy will *NOT* do it. To do so, you must show that payment of the debt âoewill impose an undue hardship on you and your dependents.â And with the government willing to take payments as little as $20 for the rest of your life, and even defer payment for a couple of years for you to get things back together, meeting that condition in a court just doesn't happen.
They're young. Their wages will be garnished when they do eventually get jobs, even if it is 20 years down the road. And good luck ever getting a mortgage or even a new car loan with delinquent student loans.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple to fix. Forbid it at the State level for State schools. I'm fairly sure the charters of most State universities specifically say they are there to provide education for State residents. It is a small step for State legislatures to restrict the percentage of foreign students enrolled.
Private universities can do what they want.
No, it doesn't work that way. First initialization is sort of a manual process. It is actually a fairly secure process and not really open to malware circumvention. Possible, yes. Complicated, convoluted and highly unlikely, yes.
Exactly. There are functions available to load the keys into the TPM module upon initialization. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2008-0391.html
You are correct in that it doesn't suit my needs. However, several laptops do in that they have TPM chips included, but uninitialized. You can initialize them and create the keys. This is optimal.
I really don't mind the government mandating having a lock -- so long as *I* and not *they* have the key.
Easily, if you hold the keys. The trick is the keys that sign the boot image need to be in your control.
Google does this with their CR-48 Chromebook. It will only boot Google-signed images. But, there is a small switch in the battery compartment to put it into developer mode where it'll boot any image.
I *LIKE* TPM, as long as I generate the signing keys for the images. Then it'll boot what *I* tell it, and not necessarily what MS or the gov't, or anyone else tell it to.
It ensure that *I* can trust my computer. Screw what they want to trust.
Thurston Howell III was the rich, old guy on Gilligan's Island.
Don't be so sure. A pure electric engine will most likely spank your ass in that situation. They apply 100% of the torque, 100% of the time. IC engines have a power curve that is much different.
Take a look at the issues Tesla had in getting a transmission in their Roadster. It was screamingly fast off the line, but too hard on the components to make it reliable in the long term. The end result is only one gear on that car.
If you're interested in tearing around at auto shows, see what you can do to get a multi-gear transmission in an electric hot rod. You'll run rings around the petrol burners.
Read my post again, and try and come up with an original response instead of just a pithy (unattributed) quote.
I wasn't objecting to taxes. I was objecting to the disconnect in the understanding of the relationship between taxes and government services. My objection was to categorizing the services provided as "free", and the entitlement mentality it fosters.
The government could just purchase land for the creation of military bases?
Sorry, that isn't how it is supposed to be read. Considering one of the primary authors of the document is Thomas Jefferson. The same Thomas Jefferson who finagled it to allow him to make the Louisiana Purchase -- though not without debate on the issue.
We'd also have to give Alaska back. And what about land acquired through conquest and treaty, like what we took from Mexico and what was ceded from Britain, Spain and Mexico?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territorial_acquisitions
The NPS was created by the clause that allows them to make laws to regulate the Federally owned lands. The acquisition of the land would be the only hiccup.
It took me quite a few years for me to fully grok this. The reason is very simple.
Most people don't use logic, they use emotion to think. They start with the conclusion they want and work backwards to come up with the path to get there -- even if the path is invalid.
Keep an ear out for the words "should" and "deserve" in a conversation. Both are indications of faulty thought patterns.
"Should" comes up a lot in people saying "it should work that way". Which is shorthand for, "it doesn't work that way, but I want it to so I'll act as if it does and blame everyone else for when I fail".
"Deserve" is simpler. Replace it with "earn" and see if the sentence still holds up.
I have that discussion with my wife a lot. She says "but it should work that way" and my retort is, "yes, but it DOESN'T and we have to deal with the way it really works and not the way you want it to."
It is in the Constitution, which is what our government is based on.
Schooling, however, is in the various State constitutions and not a matter for the Federal government.
No one was arguing for no government. Ron Paul argues for a government limited to the powers granted by the Constitution.
Freight rail is what I was talking about, and it is *not* heavily subsidized by the government. Amtrak is passenger rail.
I can't separate out airline passenger vs freight for subsidies, and an argument could easily be made that the feds didn't need to provide airport subsidies for freight, but it would be weak.
Sorry, I'm not going to rise to a 75-year old argument with you. This is essentially the "rail vs roads" argument all over again.
A very credible case can be made for you being wrong, at least in regard to long-haul trucking versus rail freight/barge shipping.
I agree the Interstate System improved personal travel and helped open vast areas of the country to commercialization. However, the road system is also specifically authorized in the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 7)
You're not an American, so the implied context is lost on you. Sorry, I'll clarify.
Ron Paul is a fairly staunch Libertarian, but not an Anarchist. His objection isn't to government, but rather to the doing the things our Constitution explicitly says is the responsibilities of the States.
The idea being the closer the government is to the people (and visa versa), the more responsive it will be. And, in turn, the more participatory they can be.
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
That one gives the Congress the authority to create National Parks, as long as the State the park is in agrees. In some cases, parks were created out of Federally owned land before any State existed there.
The next paragraph gives them the authority to create the National Park Service, which they did in 1916.
Both the NOAA and FEMA can easily be read in under Paragraph 1 of that same section:
If FEMA isn't "the general Welfare", I don't know what is.
And thus, his point is proved.
NOAA services are not free, they are paid for by taxes. TANSTAAFL. The fact that you call them "free" means you've stopped associating government services with the costs incurred through taxation.
This is one of the big problems. Too many people think of government services as "free" because there is no direct association with the taxes required to pay for them. The true costs are hidden, so people make foolish decisions because they don't see a cost.
Bell Labs was a premier research institution when their largest customer was the U.S. Government, and specifically the War Department -- which is what it was called back in the day.
It could be done, but the culture of corporations is "show me the money". They're interested in immediate profits and short-term ROI. They are NOT interested in fundamental research and long-term roadmaps.
Bell Labs being a specific example of that. When Lucent merged with Alcatel the CEO of Lucent said basically, "if you can't productize it within 7 years, shelve it. We don't do basic research like that any more."
Considering the shipping (sea & barge), air, freight rail and trucking industries in the United States aren't government built or maintained, you might want to reconsider that. Regulated, yes. Built and maintained, no.
Yes, the roads are, but believe it or not, stuff got shipped and delivered before the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways got built. And many of the roads in this country are still built and maintained with city, county and State funds.
Why not do both?
Yeah...spread all over an Afghan hillside, unfortunately.
Actually, it isn't all your fault. Most rests on your parents, for forcing you into the potentially (and eventually) untenable situation.
I know it isn't nice to speak ill of the dead, and that they meant well, but the fact remains they essentially forced you into that situation.
Part of the problem is our culture that places such a high value on brand-name education. It has been my experience that the majority of the "education" received depends on the student much more so than the school or teacher. Going to Harvard or Yale, for example, is done for the connections you make, not necessarily the education you get.
Patience, grasshopper, patience. Eventually, even if it is 20 years down the road, the vast majority will get a job. At that time, the garnishments will apply. Remember, when you enter the mainstream workforce you pay income tax and there is social security withholding. The government knows when you have enough for them to tap you on your shoulder and put its hand deeper in your pocket.
But, won't they all be in bed and asleep by eleven? What time does Dancing with the Stars end?
I was going to say, "Yes, they're on Slashdot", but you had to specify *female*.
I got news for you, short of dying, they won't get out of paying those debts back. Federally backed student loans are a class of debt that is nigh unto impossible to get forgiven or written off. In most cases, bankruptcy will *NOT* do it. To do so, you must show that payment of the debt âoewill impose an undue hardship on you and your dependents.â And with the government willing to take payments as little as $20 for the rest of your life, and even defer payment for a couple of years for you to get things back together, meeting that condition in a court just doesn't happen.
They're young. Their wages will be garnished when they do eventually get jobs, even if it is 20 years down the road. And good luck ever getting a mortgage or even a new car loan with delinquent student loans.