Your argument may make somewhat more sense at a public school, but doesn't really work when looking at private schools.
We are not talking schools here but universities which are almost always strongly reliant of government funding for student education. All we are talking about here is increasing the government subsidy and reducing the student component of tuition.
You are advocating (c), force everyone to pay for college, whether or not they attend.
This sounds fair when you look at taxes. Those earning more pay more tax and usually at a higher rate too and generally a university degree leads to higher paid jobs. Even those who make lots of money without a degree e.g. Bill Gates etc. need to be able to hire people with degrees to do so so they still benefit from having those people available. Indeed all of society benefits from having nurses, teachers etc. with degrees even though these are not high paying jobs.
Indeed the UK which recently tripled university tuition costs to 9,000 pounds/year is now having trouble recruiting maths and physics teachers because people with those degrees are going into finance and industry where they can earn enough to pay off their loans. Society benefits when higher education is cheap and accessible becuse there are some jobs which pay poorly but for which you need a degree. You fund this by taxing those with higher incomes so the single dad with two young kids does not have to pay for this (unless he happens to have a really good job) and yet he still benefits because his kids will get taught by someone who knows the subject and if needs medical care there will be nurses to help provide it etc.
Not only should the costs be the same but the article nicely explains why: those getting science, engineering etc. degrees generally earn more and so will pay more tax. This extra tax should be more than enough to offset the cost of their education and is also a good way to justify why higher salaries should attract a higher rate of tax.
It will use the last place seen rather than have them emit a sound. Yup.
No, according to the summary (you didn't even need to read the article!) it will do both...at least until some idiot does this while wearing the airpods and goes deaf at which point I expect the feature will be pulled.
I don't really understand your point. Is it that govts can intervene and tell you to sell at a different price?
The OP was arguing that you can charge what you like for your product regardless of whether the price is fair or not: as long as people are willing to pay it you can charge it. My point is that you do have to factor "fair" into your pricing at some level. If you completely ignore it then you will annoy enough people that governments will eventually act, especially if your profits rely on an artificial monopoly created by those governments' laws.
'Fair' is where you go to sell your pig, not the means by which you set the price.
That's only partly true. If your pricing is extremely unfair and what you produce is essential to people then governments can get involved and laws get changed to cut you profits, especially if you rely on those same laws, such as copyright and patents, to create artificial monopolies. This is happening with the pharmaceutical industry.
In the past Canada has threatened the patent protections of some firms and more recently the US seems to be finally waking up to the crap that these companies are pulling. So while you may set your price at a level that you think you can get away with, perceived fairness is a factor in what you can get away with and you ignore it at your peril.
The fact that it's only sold in the App store now?
In which case you just connect to the app store for that country from wherever you are - I have accessed the Canadian store from Europe and the US without a problem in the past. If they eventually block that then you go through proxy and if they try to stop those they just end up playing whack-a-mole. Getting the money to the right store would be the hard part but if someone makes it worth their while I'm sure there will be resellers shipping iTunes gift cards to wherever the software costs significantly more.
The only way to preserve a price difference between two markets is to make the cost of getting around whatever barrier there is more expensive that the difference in price.
The urban centers provide the tax dollars to make your life possible. Roads, electricity, telephone lines, etc are mandated by the government and without that you'd have nothing.
...and they make our life possible by providing food and natural resources. I think we need them more than they need us: life without technology would be hard but life without food would be a lot harder.
Escape rural American lifestyle as soon as you can.
Only if you want to die of something less common. While the article is suggestive that the life expectancy of rural americans is shorter it never actually says that which suggests that they do not have the evidence to make such a claim. So if it does not make any difference to the average life expectancy do you really care whether you end up dying from a stroke instead of a rare form of cancer?
Would indeed be great for any sort of business/public environment.
Not it it works as well as automatic lights which, at least where I work, seem to stay on over night without anyone in my office and then regularly turn off every ~30 minutes or so when I am in the office. If I have to keep waving at the computer as well as the lights to prove I am still there it is not going to improve my productivity.
MIT is an academic institution. People have to publish to get degrees.
Academics have to publish papers in scientific journals not press releases with unscientific claims. You don't see this sort of thing coming from the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford and yet they are academic institutions which usually rank higher than MIT. If you are truly doing world-leading science you don't need to hype it, just publicize it, because the work speaks for itself. Over hyped claims like this makes you look like you are desperate for attention and undermines the impact of the real result if they ever do manage to create this material and it performs as expected.
Actually I'm a physicist pointing out what every competent physicist already knows: you cannot believe a theoretical prediction until it is supported by actual experimental evidence. If you had even a vague clue about the subject you would know that.
According the the article they only have a theoretical model for the material and the claim that it is the strongest material known seems to be based solely 3D printed models agreeing with a computational model of the material. This is no grounds whatsoever to claim that this is the "worlds strongest material". It's a promising start which might lead to that but until you have actually built the material and measured its properties you cannot claim the discovery.
We did not claim the Higgs discovery in the 1960s based on Higgs' theory we needed to wait until there was experimental evidence showing it was correct. The same applies here: there is no guarantee that some effect they have not modelled is important and means the material does not behave as they expect it to. A macroscopic plastic model is not guaranteed to behave the same due to the larger quantum mechanical effects at smaller scales. In fact so far they do not even know yet whether it is possible to build the material - so lets cut the hype and have them make their claim when they actually have the material in hand and confirmed it really does perform as they predict.
Actually your article shows I am right. The GPUs are soldered onto the motherboard it is just that the motherboard is split into three to wrap it around the triangular heatsink. The boards with the GPUs on them are not just GPU boars e.g. one contains the SSD port too and so are functionally parts of the motherboard. However if we ignore semantics and just look at it pragmatically nobody, not even Apple, has ever produced an upgraded version of these boards so whatever you think about the motherboard, the GPU is clearly not upgradable.
But what matters greatly for Apple is OpenCL performance.
Well for the photon propagation code my colleague runs for physics research there is a huge performance increase between the 9-series and 10-series nVidia cards so it is not just games which benefit.
Performance users would look at cloud computing for extra horsepower.
Well it is interesting that you say this because while you are correct for CPU for GPU the situation is very different. I've actually been leading a project to develop a cloud based cluster to meet our local research computing needs and GPUs are very tricky in the cloud unless you buy the massively expensive Tesla cards which are 5-10 times the price of regular 'gamer' GPUs.
So if you have single precision work (double precision work requires the expensive cards) cloud computing is still rather tricky because nVidia do not want you to do this. A colleague of mine did manage to figure out last month a way to get the driver for nVidia 10-series cards working under OpenStack - you have to a a patch to KVM to hide the fact that the machine is a virtual one from the nVidia drivers - but this is a hack an not really easy to scale at the moment.
What you say is true (although less so about the 'default OS' since physics students tend to be more aware of their computing) but you are missing the point which is that the number of macs has drastically decreased from a few years ago and the machines they are being replaced with, MS Surface books, are NOT noticeably cheaper than a mac, at least until the recent large price hike.
Hence comparing like with like the number of macs has dropped significantly and that is before the recent laptop releases which only provide even more incentive to dump macs.
Apple has suffered from a lack of progress ever since Jobs died. They are treading water... it took them 5 years to update the MacBook, and what we got was lackluster.
Not entirely correct. After Jobs died they had a year or two of progress before it petered out and it only took they 1.5 years to update the MacBook - but what we got was over expensive crap, not just lacklustre. It is the Mac itself, specifically the Mac Pro, which they have not updated for ~4 years and which they still attempt to sell for full price which is appalling.
It is hard to see how this prediction will come true unless there is a surge in iOS devices because at the moment Apple have no mac machines which can compete with PCs and MS is now clearly out innovating them with its surface line. It's bad enough that my next laptop will be the new Dell XPS 15 - the CPU and GPU are both better than the new MacBook pros, it has both USB-C and USB-A (see Apple you can put both on a laptop), the keyboard actually moves, the entire screen is touch-based and it costs $1,000 less. I can't see how Apple will grow with competition like this. macOS may be better then Windows 10 but Windows 10 has improved enormously and you can always use Linux if you need to.
Actually they are not, they are "fake" 3D in the same way that applies to "3D" films at the cinema. They may provide two distinct images for each eye but the images are always at a fixed distance. In real 3D when an object moves towards you your eyes have to adjust their focus as the object gets closer. In fake 3D the image is always the same distance away. This means that you have to override years of learning and force your eyes not to refocus. While you can do this for some people the strain generates a headache after a while and in young kids excessive exposure to this may cause developmental problems since they may end up training the mind to deal with fake 3D as opposed to real world 3D.
It is in that you are without your own home, and are subject to being out on the street on a moments notice.
This is true for anyone who rents whether it be a room in a house or a separate apartment. In fact it is probably more true for the person in the apartment because the suggestion in the article is that there are groups of people who ban together to be able to afford a house. If so they probably cannot afford to kick you out at a moment's notice unlike the owner of an apartment building.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument may make somewhat more sense at a public school, but doesn't really work when looking at private schools.
We are not talking schools here but universities which are almost always strongly reliant of government funding for student education. All we are talking about here is increasing the government subsidy and reducing the student component of tuition.
If the university has any research, the overhead from funded research will help offset the cost of undergraduate education, as well as graduate.
Why would a university do this instead of using those funds to do more research? This suggestion makes no sense.
You are advocating (c), force everyone to pay for college, whether or not they attend.
This sounds fair when you look at taxes. Those earning more pay more tax and usually at a higher rate too and generally a university degree leads to higher paid jobs. Even those who make lots of money without a degree e.g. Bill Gates etc. need to be able to hire people with degrees to do so so they still benefit from having those people available. Indeed all of society benefits from having nurses, teachers etc. with degrees even though these are not high paying jobs.
Indeed the UK which recently tripled university tuition costs to 9,000 pounds/year is now having trouble recruiting maths and physics teachers because people with those degrees are going into finance and industry where they can earn enough to pay off their loans. Society benefits when higher education is cheap and accessible becuse there are some jobs which pay poorly but for which you need a degree. You fund this by taxing those with higher incomes so the single dad with two young kids does not have to pay for this (unless he happens to have a really good job) and yet he still benefits because his kids will get taught by someone who knows the subject and if needs medical care there will be nurses to help provide it etc.
Not only should the costs be the same but the article nicely explains why: those getting science, engineering etc. degrees generally earn more and so will pay more tax. This extra tax should be more than enough to offset the cost of their education and is also a good way to justify why higher salaries should attract a higher rate of tax.
It will use the last place seen rather than have them emit a sound. Yup.
No, according to the summary (you didn't even need to read the article!) it will do both...at least until some idiot does this while wearing the airpods and goes deaf at which point I expect the feature will be pulled.
I don't really understand your point. Is it that govts can intervene and tell you to sell at a different price?
The OP was arguing that you can charge what you like for your product regardless of whether the price is fair or not: as long as people are willing to pay it you can charge it. My point is that you do have to factor "fair" into your pricing at some level. If you completely ignore it then you will annoy enough people that governments will eventually act, especially if your profits rely on an artificial monopoly created by those governments' laws.
'Fair' is where you go to sell your pig, not the means by which you set the price.
That's only partly true. If your pricing is extremely unfair and what you produce is essential to people then governments can get involved and laws get changed to cut you profits, especially if you rely on those same laws, such as copyright and patents, to create artificial monopolies. This is happening with the pharmaceutical industry.
In the past Canada has threatened the patent protections of some firms and more recently the US seems to be finally waking up to the crap that these companies are pulling. So while you may set your price at a level that you think you can get away with, perceived fairness is a factor in what you can get away with and you ignore it at your peril.
The fact that it's only sold in the App store now?
In which case you just connect to the app store for that country from wherever you are - I have accessed the Canadian store from Europe and the US without a problem in the past. If they eventually block that then you go through proxy and if they try to stop those they just end up playing whack-a-mole. Getting the money to the right store would be the hard part but if someone makes it worth their while I'm sure there will be resellers shipping iTunes gift cards to wherever the software costs significantly more.
The only way to preserve a price difference between two markets is to make the cost of getting around whatever barrier there is more expensive that the difference in price.
How is the 80% of domestic heat from "low carbon heat technologies ?" Most people I know have Gas Central heating not electric.
Ah but wait until May's hard Brexit crashes the economy. Sitting in a cave burning renewable wood for heat is definitely low carbon.
The urban centers provide the tax dollars to make your life possible. Roads, electricity, telephone lines, etc are mandated by the government and without that you'd have nothing.
Escape rural American lifestyle as soon as you can.
Only if you want to die of something less common. While the article is suggestive that the life expectancy of rural americans is shorter it never actually says that which suggests that they do not have the evidence to make such a claim. So if it does not make any difference to the average life expectancy do you really care whether you end up dying from a stroke instead of a rare form of cancer?
No, that would be from 10-14. Your numbers are a 240% increase.
Sorry but you are quite literally 100% wrong.
140% of almost zero is still very close to zero.
Would indeed be great for any sort of business/public environment.
Not it it works as well as automatic lights which, at least where I work, seem to stay on over night without anyone in my office and then regularly turn off every ~30 minutes or so when I am in the office. If I have to keep waving at the computer as well as the lights to prove I am still there it is not going to improve my productivity.
MIT is an academic institution. People have to publish to get degrees.
Academics have to publish papers in scientific journals not press releases with unscientific claims. You don't see this sort of thing coming from the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford and yet they are academic institutions which usually rank higher than MIT. If you are truly doing world-leading science you don't need to hype it, just publicize it, because the work speaks for itself. Over hyped claims like this makes you look like you are desperate for attention and undermines the impact of the real result if they ever do manage to create this material and it performs as expected.
Actually I'm a physicist pointing out what every competent physicist already knows: you cannot believe a theoretical prediction until it is supported by actual experimental evidence. If you had even a vague clue about the subject you would know that.
According the the article they only have a theoretical model for the material and the claim that it is the strongest material known seems to be based solely 3D printed models agreeing with a computational model of the material. This is no grounds whatsoever to claim that this is the "worlds strongest material". It's a promising start which might lead to that but until you have actually built the material and measured its properties you cannot claim the discovery.
We did not claim the Higgs discovery in the 1960s based on Higgs' theory we needed to wait until there was experimental evidence showing it was correct. The same applies here: there is no guarantee that some effect they have not modelled is important and means the material does not behave as they expect it to. A macroscopic plastic model is not guaranteed to behave the same due to the larger quantum mechanical effects at smaller scales. In fact so far they do not even know yet whether it is possible to build the material - so lets cut the hype and have them make their claim when they actually have the material in hand and confirmed it really does perform as they predict.
I don't know of any material with a density suitable for behaving properly as a projectile that doesn't contain toxic metals.
Actually platinum would work well; it's twice the density of lead and chemically inert. Cost might be an issue though.
Actually your article shows I am right. The GPUs are soldered onto the motherboard it is just that the motherboard is split into three to wrap it around the triangular heatsink. The boards with the GPUs on them are not just GPU boars e.g. one contains the SSD port too and so are functionally parts of the motherboard. However if we ignore semantics and just look at it pragmatically nobody, not even Apple, has ever produced an upgraded version of these boards so whatever you think about the motherboard, the GPU is clearly not upgradable.
But what matters greatly for Apple is OpenCL performance.
Well for the photon propagation code my colleague runs for physics research there is a huge performance increase between the 9-series and 10-series nVidia cards so it is not just games which benefit.
Performance users would look at cloud computing for extra horsepower.
Well it is interesting that you say this because while you are correct for CPU for GPU the situation is very different. I've actually been leading a project to develop a cloud based cluster to meet our local research computing needs and GPUs are very tricky in the cloud unless you buy the massively expensive Tesla cards which are 5-10 times the price of regular 'gamer' GPUs.
So if you have single precision work (double precision work requires the expensive cards) cloud computing is still rather tricky because nVidia do not want you to do this. A colleague of mine did manage to figure out last month a way to get the driver for nVidia 10-series cards working under OpenStack - you have to a a patch to KVM to hide the fact that the machine is a virtual one from the nVidia drivers - but this is a hack an not really easy to scale at the moment.
What you say is true (although less so about the 'default OS' since physics students tend to be more aware of their computing) but you are missing the point which is that the number of macs has drastically decreased from a few years ago and the machines they are being replaced with, MS Surface books, are NOT noticeably cheaper than a mac, at least until the recent large price hike.
Hence comparing like with like the number of macs has dropped significantly and that is before the recent laptop releases which only provide even more incentive to dump macs.
Apple has suffered from a lack of progress ever since Jobs died. They are treading water... it took them 5 years to update the MacBook, and what we got was lackluster.
Not entirely correct. After Jobs died they had a year or two of progress before it petered out and it only took they 1.5 years to update the MacBook - but what we got was over expensive crap, not just lacklustre. It is the Mac itself, specifically the Mac Pro, which they have not updated for ~4 years and which they still attempt to sell for full price which is appalling.
It is hard to see how this prediction will come true unless there is a surge in iOS devices because at the moment Apple have no mac machines which can compete with PCs and MS is now clearly out innovating them with its surface line. It's bad enough that my next laptop will be the new Dell XPS 15 - the CPU and GPU are both better than the new MacBook pros, it has both USB-C and USB-A (see Apple you can put both on a laptop), the keyboard actually moves, the entire screen is touch-based and it costs $1,000 less. I can't see how Apple will grow with competition like this. macOS may be better then Windows 10 but Windows 10 has improved enormously and you can always use Linux if you need to.
They are '3d'
Actually they are not, they are "fake" 3D in the same way that applies to "3D" films at the cinema. They may provide two distinct images for each eye but the images are always at a fixed distance. In real 3D when an object moves towards you your eyes have to adjust their focus as the object gets closer. In fake 3D the image is always the same distance away. This means that you have to override years of learning and force your eyes not to refocus. While you can do this for some people the strain generates a headache after a while and in young kids excessive exposure to this may cause developmental problems since they may end up training the mind to deal with fake 3D as opposed to real world 3D.
It is in that you are without your own home, and are subject to being out on the street on a moments notice.
This is true for anyone who rents whether it be a room in a house or a separate apartment. In fact it is probably more true for the person in the apartment because the suggestion in the article is that there are groups of people who ban together to be able to afford a house. If so they probably cannot afford to kick you out at a moment's notice unlike the owner of an apartment building.