What's the issue, and what does society gain by having people not have to cater to people with disabilities?
*People* don't have to cater to people with disabilities, businesses do. You don't have to install a ramp in your private residence. I wonder how you would feel if every house had to be fully accessible for people with disabilities? It sounds like you'd be okay with it. Some things are more important than civility, and that includes free speech and private property. Civility can only be maintained long term when people have their own outlets where they can do what they want. I feel sorry for the small retail business owner who is so entangled with the business that they lose that, due to crap laws.
The whole idea of handicapped people needing close parking is stupid. What you need for wheelchair access is wider spaces, not closer spaces. Once you're in the wheelchair, you can easily turn around what you said -- why do THEY need to be 9 feet closer? The person pushing the wheelchair isn't handicapped. I've pushed people in wheelchairs, it's no big deal to go a normal distance. After all, the parking lot is only part of the overall journey, you're still going to need to go up or down various ramps, across the field to where the track is, etc.
Most places implement handicapped parking by taking regular spots and putting a handicapped parking sign in front of them. It accomplishes nothing. The spots are the same width. It's all a feel-good crap measure that helps SOME people feel better about themselves and society, while giving it a bit of thought shows it accomplishes nothing of significance. Oooohh someone has to walk 30 feet less once in a while when they go to a busy store, that will totally change their lives! Not.
It would be far better to take 4 spots near the back or middle of the parking lot and combine them into 2 handicapped parking spots. It won't get in anybody's way and it would provide a valuable improvement to mobility handicapped people.
I wonder where the chain of responsibility ends with this ADA suit?
Can Netflix turn around and say "You have to provide closed captions free of charge" to each of their providers, since that's what is required by the ruling? I wonder why the burden is being put solely on the end distributor.
All we can hope is that the Supreme Court is becoming more enamored with limiting the commerce clause, if only as a result of the health care debate. Can't wait to see the ruling hopefully this week.
Justice Scalia recently said that he changed his mind about agreeing with the pivotal ruling in the Wickard v Filburn case (the one about the wheat farmer who was growing wheat for his own consumption, but the government decided that could be regulated as well).
here is no "free market" mechanism for taking care of the disabled, or the poor, or the elderly, or those in need of medical care, and practically all of us will be one of those at one time or another in our lives (I guess there are a few people who are born rich, have perfect health right up until they have a piano dropped on them at age 35, but even they have parents). At least none that have ever worked very well or very long. That's why civilized societies do these things.
I think the people who implement these laws, and the activists who use the laws to their advantage, are doing it mostly for powertripping reasons. That it has a benefit for some members of society is merely a side effect, akin to big banks setting up shop in a blighted downtown and having some benefit to the residents, but it's not the intention or reason.
This is just another way for the government to increase its control over the internet, don't mistake it for pure altruism towards disabled people. After all, as other commenters have said, an non-punishing, altruistic ruling would use tax money to create the subtitles and donate them not just to netflix but to anybody who needs them. And they would almost certainly use them voluntarily if the cost became zero, so let's not pretend that isn't a legitimate alternative approach.
GP was talking about overprotective parents, not obese kids. I'd guess that your stats bear out his point since overprotective parents would monitor their kids' food habits more closely.
(12) The ITAR provides a t 22 C.F.R. 5 127(d) that no person may willfully cause, or aid, abet, counsel, demand, induce, procure or permit the commission of any act prohibited by, or the omission of any act required by 22 U.S.C. 2778, 22 U.S.C. $ 2779, or any regulation, license, approval, or order issued thereunder.
Obviously being a wholly owned subsidiary is irrelevant.
The terrorists have won.. by making us more patriotic? That doesn't even make sense. I think you're going for some kind of sneaky racist meaning to patriotic, but maybe you should just openly say it to avoid confusion.
Until, of course, you watch the ad, and notice that what they say is that receiving privileged treatment as a result of your race is unfair.
No, what it says is that white people receive privilege as a result of their race. What you said was a neutral statement because it doesn't actually single out one race, what the ad said was racist because it implies that only whites receive this privilege.
it's meant to make us wake up and pay attention to people of other races being discriminated against.
Yes, but the delivery of that message is itself prone to being racist. Do the ends justify the means? I could deliver the same message in a more overtly racist way, like "Hey white people, you suck, I hate white people because they get all this privilege which other races don't, all white people should be slaves for 200 years so they understand."
You get the general idea that other races have suffered historical wrongs, that these historical wrongs manifest even to this day, there is a lot of resentment, an accusation that problems continue today, etc. You can dress it up in a neutral summary, but the message itself was racist.
Every other article is also a bullshit interpretation or deliberate misinformation in an attempt to make it seem like there's a war against white people. Day to day, I don't really see any bigoted people around me, and it's easy to forget trash like you still exists. Fuck you for reminding me that we as a society still haven't outgrown that crap and making my day that much worse.
It sounds like you're scared of people acknowledging things that happen to white people? Why is that? I mean, the Trayvon Martin case that's been on TV for the last few months is about race, and very similar accusations come up -- i.e. the argument that Trayvon was killed just for being black. Do you fly into a rage when you see that? Why is it only when the victim is white that you get so angry and start blaming the victim for being trash etc?
That makes more sense. I thought most of the kidnapping and extortion was done by organized crime, though, which I would classify as top 5% (the leadership I mean). Kidnappings and murders may be carried out by poor people, but I don't think they are spontaneously done by poor people who are trying to get rich. They are done by rich criminals looking to stay rich / get richer.
In the really backwards countries like the ones I'm thinking of, the top 5% is dominated by people either in or connected to the army or the civil government. (Particularly I'm thinking of Pakistan, which I read about quite a bit.) While it's true that the elite are attacked occasionally, it's very different from what you're talking about. The ones who are attacked are attacked by people in the same social class (or higher) and usually for religious and political reasons, not to scam money. Every so often, for instance, there will be a spate of murders targeting Shia doctors. It is done by certain religious political parties since the majority population is Sunni and very bigoted. The poor people carry out the murders, but the political leaders order them -- with no consequences.
The group that is most targeted by poor people, without coercion from someone in authority, would probably be tourists who are not rich enough to have security details.
There was another 90s show called Lexx. I didn't see it until it was in reruns, but it was quite enjoyable. Any show that has a half-lizard love slave is fine by me.
That's a good snapshot. There's always going to be a bottom segment of society by income level though, it's hard to see how it could be made much more comfortable in an affordable way.
One sad thing is that to really take advantage of the social welfare system, you need kids. A single guy making minimum wage is pretty much screwed. A single mom with 4 kids gets state funded daycare, school, food stamps, welfare, etc. It's not really fair, though I guess it's fair in the sense that anybody *could* have kids, they just choose not to.
Rich people in a third world country are like feudal lords. People don't kidnap them -- the people who do kidnapping work FOR the rich guy. They have little armies. They do what they want with no repercussions for the most part. You want to rape some cute village girl? Go for it, the parents can't retaliate by kidnapping you, though you might want to have the parents shot just in case, the police are in your pocket, the national government doesn't care. Oh, also make up some rumors about the parents working for the CIA, Mossad, or some other despicable foreign intelligence agency and you might be the local hero.
Other than that, yeah I agree those kinds of comparisons don't do much good!
College aid budget in the form of Pell grants alone: $35 billion (same source)
So 4.8% of your federal income tax goes to college aid, or 0.97% just looking at Pell grants.
So unless you paid less than $103.09 in federal tax in the entire year, you spent at least $1 just for Pell grants, let alone the rest of college aid.
Am I reading the table incorrectly? It doesn't seem like a considerable income is needed to get to dollars instead of just cents. Your source was using 2007 numbers, I believe, but it's hard to believe that it could have changed so much in just a few years. The full budget for college aid seems to be 4.5% of the budget, not 1% as they claimed.
I'm confused that you think cost doesn't legitimately factor into these kinds of decisions. As for myself, I wanted to go to MIT and do computer science. That would have been really expensive. They don't offer merit based scholarships and my parents are not poor enough to qualify for a lot of aid, and not rich enough to pay it without a lot of pain. So I didn't go to MIT, I went to my local in-state engineering school, and I'm perfectly happy with the result. Yes, my parents helped pay for my education but it wasn't a whole lot of money. I also worked part-time on campus and helped pay.
So in your example, why can't the daughter do the same? Why does she HAVE to go to North Dakota? Your argument that not going to the #1 school in the country is equivalent to not being able to pursue the education of her interest is fallacious, since there are also the #2, #3,... #n schools that also offer geology. And your argument that choosing something other than geology is equivalent to not being able to pursue an education of her interest is fallacious, since real people have more than one interest. I, for instance, was *this close* to majoring in math. If for whatever reason, like in your example, I *had* to go to MIT to do computer science, I can virtually assure you that I would be an associate professor of mathematics or an actuary or something like that today. It would have been perfectly fine for my parents to say "Well son, you also like math, and that will cost $250k less... so... think about it okay?"
If you turn away a lot of talented young people who would otherwise do well in their chosen fields, solely for money reasons, that's society's loss as well as their own.
I agree with that, but the societal utility of a person's education should be what is looked at, not whether it aligns with their dreams and interests. If your daughter is smart enough to be an engineer, but she really loves reading so she she'd rather major in English... well, if you actually care about society's loss, you'd say she should be an engineer anyway. She can read in her spare time.
I think it would be great if the cost of the degree was inversely proportional to the societal utility of the degree. If we need more engineers, make engineering degrees cheap. But that's rather different than the argument you're making.
Really, ALL of the GOP's arguments are reasoned by saying "this is my opinion, opinion's are never wrong, therefore it's right, so it's actually fact, not opinion?"
Because I've never heard that, even once. Do you think you might just be exaggerating a little bit?
I have to say, I respect parents like that. Their child has a problem, and they are doing everything they can to help, screw everyone else.
The actual problem here isn't the autistic child's parents, it's the other parents who don't care about their children. "Oh, there's a bad kid in your class, deal with it" is their response. Where are THEIR lawyers? When are THEIR meetings scheduled? They just don't care, and so they get the short end of the stick. All is well.
Similarly, your daughter wants to be a geologist. But the best geology program is (I'm making this up) North Dakota State. You don't have the option of moving your family to North Dakota to score in-state tuition. You can't tell her that her best option financially is to study to become a nurse instead. Education is not a commodity that you buy by the pound or by the linear foot.
In that case, the best option financially is for the daughter (not the family) to move to North Dakota, work and live there for a year, then receive in-state tuition.
But.. I'm confused why you "can't" tell her to become a nurse instead? If you can't move, and your in-state school doesn't offer geology, and you don't have money... yeah, the best option financially is to do something else. Why is that so difficult? Her only possibility for happiness and fulfillment in life is to do that one thing?
I worked briefly at a restaurant that had the best cream of mushroom soup I've ever tasted. So I made it at home. Making a few bowls cost me like $20, mostly in cream. I asked the chef how they charged so little and he said the main thing was they got cream for like $4/gallon. I was paying like $4/pint or so at the store.
It's sad, but why would they rather kill themselves than just stop paying? I don't know why people would take on such huge debt that cannot be cleared in bankruptcy, but we don't have debtor's prison. I'm not really sure what happens if you just stop paying, and are also unemployed and have no assets. They really can't do anything.
It's hard to have much sympathy for people who make bad but deliberate decisions. And it's not like they were scammed out of the money -- they got the "college experience" they paid for.
I agree, but I think getting rid of the various campaigns to encourage women in computer science would do wonders. Here's what I think.
In America, men who go into computers are want to believe in a meritocracy instead of things like "anti-discrimination" and "equal outcomes." I don't have evidence, that's just what I think. Men who go into computers often suffered through the exact same kind of stuff that women claim happens to them. The men are not popular in school, were probably made fun of by other kids, didn't have a wide range of friends (just those who had similar interests), and were rejected by girls (if they even attempted to talk to girls). Nobody made an attempt to help them, and nobody makes an attempt to help them today.
I think they resent programs that overtly discriminate by helping only women, because honestly it makes them feel abandoned by society yet again. They needed help, and didn't get it, but now that some girls need help, it's a national issue.
I think the most interesting aspect of it is the contrast with other countries. From what I know of India and the developing world, careers in computers, from IT to programming, are more highly esteemed than here. Here, sure it's a decent job, but it's not an aspiration for most people. Here, you have to love computers to go into computers. Look how many people in this very thread talk about "getting the bug" and just loving to program. In India, it's more like becoming a doctor or lawyer. You're doing it for the job, not as an outlet for your love.
As a result, like doctors and lawyers here, you get more "normal" people. There's a wide range of people interested in the job, including women, popular people, unpopular people, people good at sports or not, people good at math or not, poor people, well off people, etc. There's diversity in every aspect.
To achieve the same thing here, we'd need to make computers a sought-after career just like that. Which means paying much more money. I don't think it can possibly happen -- we just don't have that much money, and we're competing against developing countries where the current pay level is already very desirable.
So it will remain a career for people who need to love it to go into it. And I don't think it's fair or ethical to take that career and say "You need more women, there's something wrong" with that setup. People have a right to be themselves, and if that makes other people uncomfortable, well, the right to be yourself is the same right as the right to feel uncomfortable. Making people who are being themselves change for others doesn't make sense, because you could also just say "Well, stop being uncomfortable."
Seriously, though, how do you ask 1/2 the population why they didn't choose something when, realistically, it may not have even been a conscious choice?
If it wasn't a conscious choice, that already tells us that women are not "pushed out" of computer science. Since that's an open question, answering it in the negative would be hugely useful and interesting.
As for how to ask, send everybody in the country a survey: 1. Are you a programmer, systems administrator, or [whatever jobs we define]? yes/no
2. If not, did you consider going into any of those fields at some point? yes/no
3. If so, why did you opt out? Select all that apply a. More interested in other careers b. Not confident enough c. Job market seemed too risky d. Not enough money e. Didn't like or get along with the people in that field f. Other (free response): ________________
4. What type of career did you end up in? a. None b. Science c. Engineering [etc] z. Other (free response): ______________
I think that would be very useful and interesting. A census of careers and choices. Why isn't there someone doing it?
I'm sure you'd also find plenty of guys who said "Well that's a female-dominated field" when asked about nursing, child care, perfume, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with that though. The sad thing is, the result of that report would be used as evidence that men are sexist, whereas when women say "Well that's a male-dominated field" that would also be used as evidence that men are sexist.
I thought women liked guys with a sense of humor. And according to a wide range of sources, women go for jerks and assholes.
Seriously though, I think you're not giving women enough credit if you think off color jokes are the reason they are abandoning an entire field of careers. I mean think of how easy that problem is to solve: Don't hang out with the mean guys. Wow. Ground breaking, I know. It's kind of like how nerdy guys also don't hang out with guys (and girls) who are mean to them. And when you're out of school and it's time to get a job, you do the same thing. You don't get a job at a place where everybody makes fun of you, or more subtly, where after a year on the job you still don't have any friends. You get a new job.
The whole idea that women are "pushed out" of the field is complete unfounded bullshit based on stuff like "ohhhh guys are making sexist jokes, that explains everything!"
My wife has been going through codecademy, and recently we've been working on porting a family paper and dice game to javascript so she can play it remotely with her family. I've been helping answering questions, but the design and the vast bulk of the code is hers. She's previously dabbled in python on her own, and she's pretty damn good at fixing her own laptop. We met in a online MUD. I'm fairly sure her IQ is higher than mine, and I'm no slouch.
That's pretty rare though, surely you realize that. If there were many girls who loved programming and working on computers, there wouldn't be the kind of social pressure for girls not to go into it. Remember a lot of that pressure comes from other girls.
And then there's the way guys act towards women.
That's a bullshit excuse. Look at how nerds of both sexes are treated by others. Look at how awkward guys are treated by women. Life is full of people treating you badly, but it's not like programming somehow throws you together with everybody all at once. If you don't like 90% of the people in your class, then don't hang out with them. How many friends do you need? Are you suggesting that 99%+ of guys in computer science are complete assholes who couldn't make friends with girls? That's just stupid.
I think this goes back to the crap we were taught in the 80s (at least in my school) about how we're all such special snowflakes the world should open before us and if not, we cry until someone fixes it. Girls in computer science have a choice to either attempt to fix the whole world, or fix their individual selves. The latter is much easier and more likely to happen.
If a woman asks a question on a forum that's IT related, she's likely to be told the problem is because she's a girl and couldn't possibly understand it, asked for 'pics', and another stream of offensive crap completely unrelated to the problem.
That's complete crap. It's clear you are anti-male, even if you are male yourself. (That does happen.) I, like many programmers, frequent several programming communities and I haven't seen that even once. I also go to offline community meetings where 5% - 10% of the attendants are female, and they have never once been treated disrespectfully. So either you are basing your whole computer community experience off of 4chan, or you're full of crap. Maybe you're just trolling?
And until we take our peers to task on it every time, kick out those men who do it from our communities and make it unacceptable
You are just compounding the problem. You are discriminating against men and that's not fair. It angers other men in the community who feel like you are taking female attributes and making them more important than male attributes.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the issue, and what does society gain by having people not have to cater to people with disabilities?
*People* don't have to cater to people with disabilities, businesses do. You don't have to install a ramp in your private residence. I wonder how you would feel if every house had to be fully accessible for people with disabilities? It sounds like you'd be okay with it. Some things are more important than civility, and that includes free speech and private property. Civility can only be maintained long term when people have their own outlets where they can do what they want. I feel sorry for the small retail business owner who is so entangled with the business that they lose that, due to crap laws.
The whole idea of handicapped people needing close parking is stupid. What you need for wheelchair access is wider spaces, not closer spaces. Once you're in the wheelchair, you can easily turn around what you said -- why do THEY need to be 9 feet closer? The person pushing the wheelchair isn't handicapped. I've pushed people in wheelchairs, it's no big deal to go a normal distance. After all, the parking lot is only part of the overall journey, you're still going to need to go up or down various ramps, across the field to where the track is, etc.
Most places implement handicapped parking by taking regular spots and putting a handicapped parking sign in front of them. It accomplishes nothing. The spots are the same width. It's all a feel-good crap measure that helps SOME people feel better about themselves and society, while giving it a bit of thought shows it accomplishes nothing of significance. Oooohh someone has to walk 30 feet less once in a while when they go to a busy store, that will totally change their lives! Not.
It would be far better to take 4 spots near the back or middle of the parking lot and combine them into 2 handicapped parking spots. It won't get in anybody's way and it would provide a valuable improvement to mobility handicapped people.
I wonder where the chain of responsibility ends with this ADA suit?
Can Netflix turn around and say "You have to provide closed captions free of charge" to each of their providers, since that's what is required by the ruling? I wonder why the burden is being put solely on the end distributor.
All we can hope is that the Supreme Court is becoming more enamored with limiting the commerce clause, if only as a result of the health care debate. Can't wait to see the ruling hopefully this week.
Justice Scalia recently said that he changed his mind about agreeing with the pivotal ruling in the Wickard v Filburn case (the one about the wheat farmer who was growing wheat for his own consumption, but the government decided that could be regulated as well).
here is no "free market" mechanism for taking care of the disabled, or the poor, or the elderly, or those in need of medical care, and practically all of us will be one of those at one time or another in our lives (I guess there are a few people who are born rich, have perfect health right up until they have a piano dropped on them at age 35, but even they have parents). At least none that have ever worked very well or very long. That's why civilized societies do these things.
I think the people who implement these laws, and the activists who use the laws to their advantage, are doing it mostly for powertripping reasons. That it has a benefit for some members of society is merely a side effect, akin to big banks setting up shop in a blighted downtown and having some benefit to the residents, but it's not the intention or reason.
This is just another way for the government to increase its control over the internet, don't mistake it for pure altruism towards disabled people. After all, as other commenters have said, an non-punishing, altruistic ruling would use tax money to create the subtitles and donate them not just to netflix but to anybody who needs them. And they would almost certainly use them voluntarily if the cost became zero, so let's not pretend that isn't a legitimate alternative approach.
GP was talking about overprotective parents, not obese kids. I'd guess that your stats bear out his point since overprotective parents would monitor their kids' food habits more closely.
From http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/consent_agreements/pdf/Raytheon_DraftChargingLetter_03.pdf
(12) The ITAR provides a t 22 C.F.R. 5 127(d) that no person may willfully cause,
or aid, abet, counsel, demand, induce, procure or permit the commission of any act
prohibited by, or the omission of any act required by 22 U.S.C. 2778, 22 U.S.C. $ 2779,
or any regulation, license, approval, or order issued thereunder.
Obviously being a wholly owned subsidiary is irrelevant.
The terrorists have won.. by making us more patriotic? That doesn't even make sense. I think you're going for some kind of sneaky racist meaning to patriotic, but maybe you should just openly say it to avoid confusion.
Until, of course, you watch the ad, and notice that what they say is that receiving privileged treatment as a result of your race is unfair.
No, what it says is that white people receive privilege as a result of their race. What you said was a neutral statement because it doesn't actually single out one race, what the ad said was racist because it implies that only whites receive this privilege.
it's meant to make us wake up and pay attention to people of other races being discriminated against.
Yes, but the delivery of that message is itself prone to being racist. Do the ends justify the means? I could deliver the same message in a more overtly racist way, like "Hey white people, you suck, I hate white people because they get all this privilege which other races don't, all white people should be slaves for 200 years so they understand."
You get the general idea that other races have suffered historical wrongs, that these historical wrongs manifest even to this day, there is a lot of resentment, an accusation that problems continue today, etc. You can dress it up in a neutral summary, but the message itself was racist.
Every other article is also a bullshit interpretation or deliberate misinformation in an attempt to make it seem like there's a war against white people. Day to day, I don't really see any bigoted people around me, and it's easy to forget trash like you still exists. Fuck you for reminding me that we as a society still haven't outgrown that crap and making my day that much worse.
It sounds like you're scared of people acknowledging things that happen to white people? Why is that? I mean, the Trayvon Martin case that's been on TV for the last few months is about race, and very similar accusations come up -- i.e. the argument that Trayvon was killed just for being black. Do you fly into a rage when you see that? Why is it only when the victim is white that you get so angry and start blaming the victim for being trash etc?
That makes more sense. I thought most of the kidnapping and extortion was done by organized crime, though, which I would classify as top 5% (the leadership I mean). Kidnappings and murders may be carried out by poor people, but I don't think they are spontaneously done by poor people who are trying to get rich. They are done by rich criminals looking to stay rich / get richer.
In the really backwards countries like the ones I'm thinking of, the top 5% is dominated by people either in or connected to the army or the civil government. (Particularly I'm thinking of Pakistan, which I read about quite a bit.) While it's true that the elite are attacked occasionally, it's very different from what you're talking about. The ones who are attacked are attacked by people in the same social class (or higher) and usually for religious and political reasons, not to scam money. Every so often, for instance, there will be a spate of murders targeting Shia doctors. It is done by certain religious political parties since the majority population is Sunni and very bigoted. The poor people carry out the murders, but the political leaders order them -- with no consequences.
The group that is most targeted by poor people, without coercion from someone in authority, would probably be tourists who are not rich enough to have security details.
There was another 90s show called Lexx. I didn't see it until it was in reruns, but it was quite enjoyable. Any show that has a half-lizard love slave is fine by me.
That's a good snapshot. There's always going to be a bottom segment of society by income level though, it's hard to see how it could be made much more comfortable in an affordable way.
One sad thing is that to really take advantage of the social welfare system, you need kids. A single guy making minimum wage is pretty much screwed. A single mom with 4 kids gets state funded daycare, school, food stamps, welfare, etc. It's not really fair, though I guess it's fair in the sense that anybody *could* have kids, they just choose not to.
Rich people in a third world country are like feudal lords. People don't kidnap them -- the people who do kidnapping work FOR the rich guy. They have little armies. They do what they want with no repercussions for the most part. You want to rape some cute village girl? Go for it, the parents can't retaliate by kidnapping you, though you might want to have the parents shot just in case, the police are in your pocket, the national government doesn't care. Oh, also make up some rumors about the parents working for the CIA, Mossad, or some other despicable foreign intelligence agency and you might be the local hero.
Other than that, yeah I agree those kinds of comparisons don't do much good!
First off, congrats on making enough to make those tax dollars rather than cents, that must be considerable :).
Federal budget in 2011: $3.6 trillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget
College aid budget in 2011: $171 billion http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/edu.pdf (search for AID FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING to see the appropriate table)
College aid budget in the form of Pell grants alone: $35 billion (same source)
So 4.8% of your federal income tax goes to college aid, or 0.97% just looking at Pell grants.
So unless you paid less than $103.09 in federal tax in the entire year, you spent at least $1 just for Pell grants, let alone the rest of college aid.
Am I reading the table incorrectly? It doesn't seem like a considerable income is needed to get to dollars instead of just cents. Your source was using 2007 numbers, I believe, but it's hard to believe that it could have changed so much in just a few years. The full budget for college aid seems to be 4.5% of the budget, not 1% as they claimed.
I'm confused that you think cost doesn't legitimately factor into these kinds of decisions. As for myself, I wanted to go to MIT and do computer science. That would have been really expensive. They don't offer merit based scholarships and my parents are not poor enough to qualify for a lot of aid, and not rich enough to pay it without a lot of pain. So I didn't go to MIT, I went to my local in-state engineering school, and I'm perfectly happy with the result. Yes, my parents helped pay for my education but it wasn't a whole lot of money. I also worked part-time on campus and helped pay.
So in your example, why can't the daughter do the same? Why does she HAVE to go to North Dakota? Your argument that not going to the #1 school in the country is equivalent to not being able to pursue the education of her interest is fallacious, since there are also the #2, #3, ... #n schools that also offer geology. And your argument that choosing something other than geology is equivalent to not being able to pursue an education of her interest is fallacious, since real people have more than one interest. I, for instance, was *this close* to majoring in math. If for whatever reason, like in your example, I *had* to go to MIT to do computer science, I can virtually assure you that I would be an associate professor of mathematics or an actuary or something like that today. It would have been perfectly fine for my parents to say "Well son, you also like math, and that will cost $250k less... so... think about it okay?"
If you turn away a lot of talented young people who would otherwise do well in their chosen fields, solely for money reasons, that's society's loss as well as their own.
I agree with that, but the societal utility of a person's education should be what is looked at, not whether it aligns with their dreams and interests. If your daughter is smart enough to be an engineer, but she really loves reading so she she'd rather major in English... well, if you actually care about society's loss, you'd say she should be an engineer anyway. She can read in her spare time.
I think it would be great if the cost of the degree was inversely proportional to the societal utility of the degree. If we need more engineers, make engineering degrees cheap. But that's rather different than the argument you're making.
Really, ALL of the GOP's arguments are reasoned by saying "this is my opinion, opinion's are never wrong, therefore it's right, so it's actually fact, not opinion?"
Because I've never heard that, even once. Do you think you might just be exaggerating a little bit?
I have to say, I respect parents like that. Their child has a problem, and they are doing everything they can to help, screw everyone else.
The actual problem here isn't the autistic child's parents, it's the other parents who don't care about their children. "Oh, there's a bad kid in your class, deal with it" is their response. Where are THEIR lawyers? When are THEIR meetings scheduled? They just don't care, and so they get the short end of the stick. All is well.
Similarly, your daughter wants to be a geologist. But the best geology program is (I'm making this up) North Dakota State. You don't have the option of moving your family to North Dakota to score in-state tuition. You can't tell her that her best option financially is to study to become a nurse instead. Education is not a commodity that you buy by the pound or by the linear foot.
In that case, the best option financially is for the daughter (not the family) to move to North Dakota, work and live there for a year, then receive in-state tuition.
But.. I'm confused why you "can't" tell her to become a nurse instead? If you can't move, and your in-state school doesn't offer geology, and you don't have money... yeah, the best option financially is to do something else. Why is that so difficult? Her only possibility for happiness and fulfillment in life is to do that one thing?
For some ingredients it's even cheaper than 35%.
I worked briefly at a restaurant that had the best cream of mushroom soup I've ever tasted. So I made it at home. Making a few bowls cost me like $20, mostly in cream. I asked the chef how they charged so little and he said the main thing was they got cream for like $4/gallon. I was paying like $4/pint or so at the store.
It's sad, but why would they rather kill themselves than just stop paying? I don't know why people would take on such huge debt that cannot be cleared in bankruptcy, but we don't have debtor's prison. I'm not really sure what happens if you just stop paying, and are also unemployed and have no assets. They really can't do anything.
It's hard to have much sympathy for people who make bad but deliberate decisions. And it's not like they were scammed out of the money -- they got the "college experience" they paid for.
I agree, but I think getting rid of the various campaigns to encourage women in computer science would do wonders. Here's what I think.
In America, men who go into computers are want to believe in a meritocracy instead of things like "anti-discrimination" and "equal outcomes." I don't have evidence, that's just what I think. Men who go into computers often suffered through the exact same kind of stuff that women claim happens to them. The men are not popular in school, were probably made fun of by other kids, didn't have a wide range of friends (just those who had similar interests), and were rejected by girls (if they even attempted to talk to girls). Nobody made an attempt to help them, and nobody makes an attempt to help them today.
I think they resent programs that overtly discriminate by helping only women, because honestly it makes them feel abandoned by society yet again. They needed help, and didn't get it, but now that some girls need help, it's a national issue.
I think the most interesting aspect of it is the contrast with other countries. From what I know of India and the developing world, careers in computers, from IT to programming, are more highly esteemed than here. Here, sure it's a decent job, but it's not an aspiration for most people. Here, you have to love computers to go into computers. Look how many people in this very thread talk about "getting the bug" and just loving to program. In India, it's more like becoming a doctor or lawyer. You're doing it for the job, not as an outlet for your love.
As a result, like doctors and lawyers here, you get more "normal" people. There's a wide range of people interested in the job, including women, popular people, unpopular people, people good at sports or not, people good at math or not, poor people, well off people, etc. There's diversity in every aspect.
To achieve the same thing here, we'd need to make computers a sought-after career just like that. Which means paying much more money. I don't think it can possibly happen -- we just don't have that much money, and we're competing against developing countries where the current pay level is already very desirable.
So it will remain a career for people who need to love it to go into it. And I don't think it's fair or ethical to take that career and say "You need more women, there's something wrong" with that setup. People have a right to be themselves, and if that makes other people uncomfortable, well, the right to be yourself is the same right as the right to feel uncomfortable. Making people who are being themselves change for others doesn't make sense, because you could also just say "Well, stop being uncomfortable."
Seriously, though, how do you ask 1/2 the population why they didn't choose something when, realistically, it may not have even been a conscious choice?
If it wasn't a conscious choice, that already tells us that women are not "pushed out" of computer science. Since that's an open question, answering it in the negative would be hugely useful and interesting.
As for how to ask, send everybody in the country a survey:
1. Are you a programmer, systems administrator, or [whatever jobs we define]? yes/no
2. If not, did you consider going into any of those fields at some point? yes/no
3. If so, why did you opt out? Select all that apply
a. More interested in other careers
b. Not confident enough
c. Job market seemed too risky
d. Not enough money
e. Didn't like or get along with the people in that field
f. Other (free response): ________________
4. What type of career did you end up in?
a. None
b. Science
c. Engineering
[etc]
z. Other (free response): ______________
I think that would be very useful and interesting. A census of careers and choices. Why isn't there someone doing it?
I'm sure you'd also find plenty of guys who said "Well that's a female-dominated field" when asked about nursing, child care, perfume, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with that though. The sad thing is, the result of that report would be used as evidence that men are sexist, whereas when women say "Well that's a male-dominated field" that would also be used as evidence that men are sexist.
I thought women liked guys with a sense of humor. And according to a wide range of sources, women go for jerks and assholes.
Seriously though, I think you're not giving women enough credit if you think off color jokes are the reason they are abandoning an entire field of careers. I mean think of how easy that problem is to solve: Don't hang out with the mean guys. Wow. Ground breaking, I know. It's kind of like how nerdy guys also don't hang out with guys (and girls) who are mean to them. And when you're out of school and it's time to get a job, you do the same thing. You don't get a job at a place where everybody makes fun of you, or more subtly, where after a year on the job you still don't have any friends. You get a new job.
The whole idea that women are "pushed out" of the field is complete unfounded bullshit based on stuff like "ohhhh guys are making sexist jokes, that explains everything!"
My wife has been going through codecademy, and recently we've been working on porting a family paper and dice game to javascript so she can play it remotely with her family. I've been helping answering questions, but the design and the vast bulk of the code is hers. She's previously dabbled in python on her own, and she's pretty damn good at fixing her own laptop. We met in a online MUD. I'm fairly sure her IQ is higher than mine, and I'm no slouch.
That's pretty rare though, surely you realize that. If there were many girls who loved programming and working on computers, there wouldn't be the kind of social pressure for girls not to go into it. Remember a lot of that pressure comes from other girls.
And then there's the way guys act towards women.
That's a bullshit excuse. Look at how nerds of both sexes are treated by others. Look at how awkward guys are treated by women. Life is full of people treating you badly, but it's not like programming somehow throws you together with everybody all at once. If you don't like 90% of the people in your class, then don't hang out with them. How many friends do you need? Are you suggesting that 99%+ of guys in computer science are complete assholes who couldn't make friends with girls? That's just stupid.
I think this goes back to the crap we were taught in the 80s (at least in my school) about how we're all such special snowflakes the world should open before us and if not, we cry until someone fixes it. Girls in computer science have a choice to either attempt to fix the whole world, or fix their individual selves. The latter is much easier and more likely to happen.
If a woman asks a question on a forum that's IT related, she's likely to be told the problem is because she's a girl and couldn't possibly understand it, asked for 'pics', and another stream of offensive crap completely unrelated to the problem.
That's complete crap. It's clear you are anti-male, even if you are male yourself. (That does happen.) I, like many programmers, frequent several programming communities and I haven't seen that even once. I also go to offline community meetings where 5% - 10% of the attendants are female, and they have never once been treated disrespectfully. So either you are basing your whole computer community experience off of 4chan, or you're full of crap. Maybe you're just trolling?
And until we take our peers to task on it every time, kick out those men who do it from our communities and make it unacceptable
You are just compounding the problem. You are discriminating against men and that's not fair. It angers other men in the community who feel like you are taking female attributes and making them more important than male attributes.