I'm the cornerstone of rationality for a good portion of my friends, so I found it no surprise when one emailed me requesting I watch a documentary called "Burzynski" (http://www.burzynskimovie.com/) and decide if the guy was a quack or really on to something.
I watched the documentary before researching anything about him and was genuinely intrigued. They present science and statistics in the movie and show how the gov't took some really (in retrospect) bonehead actions to prevent him from providing his therapy.
Then I looked up actual history and figured out that the guy is a quack. No one can replicate his results and he gets angry when they don't. He claims that all the independent trials are purposely done incorrect to his specifications.
But here's my problem: Fully aside from this guy being a genuine quack, why not just test his therapy fully and completely? Follow his specs and advice to the proverbial "T". Prove him wrong beyond a reasonable doubt and put an end to it.
If I send you an email, please respond via email. It's not that hard. I thought that was implied. If you don't respond by email, then I have to assume you can't form coherent sentences and want me to figure out what you *want* to say through all your babel or you just want to say something without being able to be quoted.
I'm with you 100%. A phone call is good to lock down something tiny and barely significant-- "Where did you want to meet? Your office? Ok, I'll be there at noon." It is not for anything genuinely important like giving justification for actions or major planning.
Prior to email, letters and memoranda were sent or, if you had enough money, you'd get a phone call and a typist would take down the important bits. But now *everyone* has an access to quick and easy referenceable communication to facilitate thoughtful response. It's called email and the company that tries to kill it will only bring strife and confusion upon itself.
First, the guy is hilarious. FTFA: --- "For Wallace to comply, the state Department of Justice fingerprinted the couple and told Wallace he needed to show them such things as a solid security system for his product. Wallace sent a photograph of Buddy sitting on the front porch.
"These guys don't go for my humor," Wallace said. "Cops are the most humorless knotheads on the planet." ---
Also, wasn't this guy relatively safe via security through obscurity. Meth heads don't go around randomly seeking out any component but ephedrine. But now, this guy is a target.
Once you recognize someone is a victim due to your actions in the course of your regular duties, it becomes YOUR responsibility to make it right. Labeling something collateral damage doesn't absolve one of responsibility, but, instead, claims responsibility with mitigating circumstances. And if you're responsible for the harm, you're responsible for the fix.
I think the same of people who prefer to talk on the phone. Email keeps a trail of evidence. Email keeps people honest in business. Phones are for off-the-record communication, now.
When people call me in response to an email, I frequently think that they just don't know how to form coherent sentences and want to put the responsibility of communication fully on me instead of them explaining something on the record.
I find this genuinely intriguing. If I'm cheap and lazy then I will be cheap and lazy... and confident:
"Yeah, I couldn't be bothered to spend 2 hours making small iced cakes for our potluck nor did I think it worthwhile to spend $39 on a dozen cupcakes when I could just get a Costco cake for a tenner. I see you brought fried chicken from Albertson's. Lemme get in on some of that..."
See? People confident about the insecurities derived from assumed social expectations help other people feel comfortable about their insecurities.
But that doesn't mean I don't understand. Some people feel very self-conscious about how they think they will be perceived. Some of those people have little choice but to associate with people who are genuinely judgmental about such frivolity. To them, I say, "Buy the $39 cupcakes and swap them out with the Sam's Club special. Keep the expensive ones for yourself just to spite those who would seek to evaluate you on the basis of the complimentary food you provide to others."
Of course, the "regular coffee" from these chain barrista places typically taste like cigarette ashes because they keep the same pot on high heat for 5 hours out of the day.
Yes and no. People will pay $3.95 for a coffee with the potential of being a high-maintenance tool (Tall soy mocha latte with almond sweetener and lightly iced). People are still not willing to pay more than $2 for a large cup of black coffee "with the sugar and cream behind you on the counter".
Of course, the "regular coffee" from these chain barrista places typically taste like
Are you talking about "Sprinkles"? There's one in Newport Beach and my partner and I went there, knowing we'd be wasting our money, to buy their cupcakes and make up our minds on the value of their boutique pastries. We spent $39 on a dozen assorted.
Our conclusions? The cake is no better than a correctly prepared Betty Crocker mix and the icing, while pretty, comes way too thick and very simple in flavor.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a "gourmet" hunter who thinks he can tell a $50 bottle of wine from a bottle of two-buck-Chuck. In fact, I will admit bias against these boutique places that give MASSIVE price mark-ups to otherwise cheap food under the banner of "gourmet" or "artisinal" (don't get me started on the "gourmet tamales" they sell at my local farmer's market...). So when I say a flavor is "simple", I'm saying it's nothing special that would justify such a massive cost increase.
Summary: Spending $39 on a dozen cupcakes was a waste of money. People who pay so much for a simple pastry are stupid (self included) and those who think they're eating something with amazing flavor and tastably high quality have been fooled.
I was at a conference in Oakland last week where a guy from Southern California Edison spoke about the future of electric vehicle charging. When asked about the cost to charge an EV via a level 1 charger through the night versus a level 3 (20-40 minute) quick charger during peak hours (when they're most likely to be used) he said that he didn't have the exact numbers on the *power* difference (though it's significant), but the dollar-per-fill-up difference will be extreme.
The Level 3 charger alone is expected to be $50,000 - $60,000 depending on existing infrastructure. That cost will have to be made up in fill-up cost.
Then there's the cost of the power at the time of the day.
Then there's the amount of power it takes to charge something so quickly.
He closed with "It will *definitely* be a premium service. We don't expect many to need or utilize the service."
So why is Tesla doing it? Oh yes... because they're catering to a crowd of luxury environmentalists... the crowd that shrank to, like, three with the crash. Tesla's business model of supporting electric vehicles on the backs of the super wealthy has failed... they're just floundering now.
I'll agree with choosing Al Franken because the guy's intelligent and doesn't seem to pull punches (comedian's instinct).
I'd say yes to Ron Paul because he's so unelectable that he may even respond to the Slashdot request out of desperation.
But this one... this one above all, I want to see the most. Our political system receives 100% from the concept of the will of The People. The People are not capable of (nor have they the time) holding conversations with the candidates of the political races affecting them. Instead, The People rely on the mass media to ask the questions they need answered. It is this role, as the intercessor, that the mass media has and it never fails to blow it. I know they're afraid of the high maintenance candidates storming off the set or looking foolish thus never returning to the network... BUT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
Given the responsibility not being met by the media in this nation, I echo the sentiment of the parent post: "Why the fuck they let politicians off the hook when they give non-answers to direct questions in interviews and debates."
Bring us a political newscaster -- let him/her answer questions!
The problem of automobile speeding & safety and the effectiveness of citations to facilitate safe driving is compound:
1 - People view cars as a recreational device with speed as the thrill. 2 - People view cars as a means to make up for their own poor planning with increased speed being their crutch. "Oh, I slept in 20 minutes... I'll just gas it a bit harder on the 405." 3 - People feel *really* safe in their cars. And they should. Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. have all been engineered to substitute for good judgement and consideration for others. 4 - A speeding citation affects a single person and may not actual be sufficiently severe to combat recidivism.
I've lived in Southern California for my whole life and the only things I've ever seen to slow people (aside from major traffic jams) is rain (omg weather!) and visual confirmation of a law enforcement vehicle. If people think that a police officer will pull him/her over for driving unsafely, they slow down. However, with police cars relatively few and far between, people speed.
Why does seeing a cop car affect people? Because more than having to pay a fine, most people are MORTIFIED by being pulled over. Others are afraid they'll get in trouble for other things in addition to their speed. Still others just want to prevent being kept from their appointments any longer than necessary.
So, if the fear of being pulled over is a better deterrent than just issuing citations, how do we increase the rate at which people abide by traffic laws? Put more police/highway patrol cars on the road. I'm not talking about fully-sworn $60k/year officers, either. I'm talking about people hired at $35k-45k to just write traffic tickets and drive around in official vehicles.
Or deputize me. When people are utter jerks on the road, my partner and I will pull people over and bust a part of their vehicles appropriate for the crime.
Skipping multiple lanes without signaling? -- That's both tail lights smashed out. Driving on the shoulder to get ahead in a line of cars? -- That's 2 slashed tires. Run a stop sign (without at least slowing)? -- Key the car. Run a stop light? -- Smash the windshield. Using the horn like a jerk? -- One headlight smashed out.
In fact... screw the more cars on the road. My being deputized will be good enough. Who wants in?
The TSA still exists because while most people hate dealing with their security check points and infringing on liberties, most people have grown to be afraid without them. Assuredly, if they were removed from the airports, people would feel "less secure".
That's also how science works. Every a lab lights up a CERN lights up the merry-go-round, they know the likelihood of finding the Higgs is incredibly small, but they hope... and they try.
So "the hope" isn't really a great way to peg a scam. Instead, you just have to wait for proof. Tonight's the night... so just wait and see.
Where I'm at, the faculty consistently get their options for merit and promotion.
It's been staff and graduate students whose wages were frozen for the last 5 years. And then the graduate student employees unionized, but they're still paying $1100 of their $1300 monthly wage for housing.
I was one of those "inspiring people". I got involved with higher educational outreach in 2001 (end of second year of undergrad). I kept my academic focus, but knew I was destined to be in education. I was one of the few people I knew that could/would remember what it was like to be in middle school and found it very easy to connect with the students I was helping. My abilities to adapt to people were perfect for the classroom. And I love learning and watching people learn. It was a perfect fit.
After graduation, I started working professionally in higher education outreach. I was on a federal grant... which was mismanaged and I was laid off. Ok-- a stumble. Then I went with another program. And it was mismanaged. Ok-- another stumble and a bit of anger. (This is when I figured out that incompetent people who know the right words to use in front of others will often work their way into the education industry as "easy money".)
So I took a temp job, staying in education so I don't lose that "spark" and applied to Education MA/Credential programs to actually become a teacher-- someone I had planned on doing after working at the higher ed level for a while, anyway. Acceptance letters and financial aid proposals come in, everything's looking great, and the economy tanks. Teacher education funding is slashed and teachers are being laid off. I get a new financial aid statement with massive cuts and it's not enough to pick up shop and move up-state and start over. I have to decline admission.
Now, education is under direct attack by corporations who want to lower everyone's standard of living. I, having a decade of experience in education, had zero expectation of great wages, but "knew" that when I was no longer able to teach, I would be able to retire safely without worry. I expected to work with $35,000 for my first 5 years (a portion of which I would spend on my own classes) and maybe hit $50,000 before I retire. I couldn't expect that anymore. I couldn't put my partner through the risk. Like many others, I couldn't risk following my passion to teach.
Oh... and I'm a techy, but an education-luddite. I hate computers in the class room except for the teacher's computer. They have no place in my opinion.
The Federal Student Loan program definitely increases the total cost of education... well... in a way. What it does is guarantee private (and public) businesses and departments revenue in the case of price increases.
Corporately-controlled housing is very aware of this and that's why rent is constantly and significantly going up around universities. When housing prices go up, the financial aid office figures it out, and financial aid awards are adjusted accordingly. Same with the general price of books, fuel, staff, administration, and faculty. But all that means is that when costs go up (either by choice or not), more loans are pulled out for each student and the students have to pay off even more in the future.
So yes, it's a problem. But the elimination of the Federal student loan program would only open up the field to private banks... and we already tell our students to do everything possible before getting a private bank loan. They're ruthless with their interest and pay schedules.
What's the solution? Here's a start. It just MAY be based on my experiences...
Step 1: Each public university (or uni. system) should have a salary cap on all administrators. The highest anyone should be paid for helping to run a public university should be $250,000 (at the system level. Local administrators should be capped at $150,000. Faculty should be capped at $125,000. Staff should be capped at $75,000.
Step 2: Universities should be directly involved with negotiating rent controlling the area around the university so that staff and students don't NEED so much money.
Step 3: For those universities with sufficient land, focus on on-campus housing and DO NOT make "luxury student housing". Nor luxury staff housing. Go utilitarian. Civil engineers know what people want and need. Students do not need brick portico entrances to their dorms.
I hold Slashdot to a much higher standard than you do, then. I think Slashdotters would assert that Teslas, driven like combustion sports cars on a track, are shit. I really don't think they would omit that very important qualifier because that's the only thing Clarkson tested-- track performance relative to a combustion sports car.
For further reference, check out the episode where a BMW M3 gets better mileage than a Prius.
Test conditions: Both cars fill up and do 10 laps. Prius was driven as fast as possible The BMW just had to keep up with the Prius (not an issue). There was hard acceleration and very little braking. Under these test conditions, the Prius got 17.2 MPG, the M3 got 19.4 MPG.
Does this mean that the Prius is less fuel-efficient than a BMW M3? In those conditions- yes.
The criticism (faked or not) is that electric cars driven like super sports cars do not last long enough on the track. Regardless of how it played out on television, Tesla could have sent a response to Top Gear saying, "While we hope our regular drivers will not need to drive like Clarkson does on the track, we understand the demand for longer run time and are working on further extending the drive. We're not through, yet."
Clarkson would have praised that. And thus his audience would have praised that. And Tesla would be praised.
That's called PR and that's all this is about. Tesla asserts that Top Gear's massive influence in the industry (of cars regular people cant' buy) has, can, or will hurt the sales of their electric sports car. They could have omitted the courts altogether and just taken the potential PR and run with it.
Hydrogen fuel cell is electric. Clarkson has said in the past that hydrogen fuel cell cars are the *best* electric option to his (then) knowledge because it doesn't require plugging in for hours and draining an already strained power grid while still burning fossil fuels to power the cars. Of course, I don't think he fully understood the difficulty of obtaining and transporting hydrogen (most recent research and breakthroughs excluded).
He thinks the electric cars need to be made un-fun to be made green (look at the Nissan Leaf). And when he saw and first drove the Tesla, he was excited at being wrong... but then he figured out that he can't drive it as hard as a combustion car for too long.
But I don't think electric cars are the future either. It may have to do with my ground level experience in transportation and infrastructure, but if electric-battery vehicles are going to be a part of our future, they're going to have to be hybrids. Either plug-in fossil fuel, plug-in diesel, plug-in hyrdrogen, etc. But the main source of fuel cannot be our electrical grid. The grid can only be a means of topping off the batteries during off-peak hours.
Koenigsegg put a super car on Top Gear. It was not good enough. There was not enough down force in the rear, the car lost control, and it crashed. Top Gear said, "This thing REALLY needs a spoiler."
Koenigsegg sued Top Gear. Just kidding, they put a spoiler on it and sent it back to Top Gear. They took it around the track again and it got an amazing time. No crashes.
No, I'm not saying that Top Gear can instantly diagnose car problems and their words should be heeded at all times. What I'm saying is that Koenigsegg made off with massive good PR by taking criticism from some of the most watched television personalities in the world, improved their car, and, showing no hard feelings, gave the car back to them. They didn't call mommy and daddy claiming their driver crashed their car. They didn't claim slander. They knew that they had the opportunity to show how dedicated they were to making an amazing car and took it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! This was my first though.
(Note to editors: Define your abbreviations or lose your audience.)
I'm the cornerstone of rationality for a good portion of my friends, so I found it no surprise when one emailed me requesting I watch a documentary called "Burzynski" (http://www.burzynskimovie.com/) and decide if the guy was a quack or really on to something.
I watched the documentary before researching anything about him and was genuinely intrigued. They present science and statistics in the movie and show how the gov't took some really (in retrospect) bonehead actions to prevent him from providing his therapy.
Then I looked up actual history and figured out that the guy is a quack. No one can replicate his results and he gets angry when they don't. He claims that all the independent trials are purposely done incorrect to his specifications.
But here's my problem: Fully aside from this guy being a genuine quack, why not just test his therapy fully and completely? Follow his specs and advice to the proverbial "T". Prove him wrong beyond a reasonable doubt and put an end to it.
PLEASE!
If I send you an email, please respond via email. It's not that hard. I thought that was implied. If you don't respond by email, then I have to assume you can't form coherent sentences and want me to figure out what you *want* to say through all your babel or you just want to say something without being able to be quoted.
I'm with you 100%. A phone call is good to lock down something tiny and barely significant-- "Where did you want to meet? Your office? Ok, I'll be there at noon." It is not for anything genuinely important like giving justification for actions or major planning.
Prior to email, letters and memoranda were sent or, if you had enough money, you'd get a phone call and a typist would take down the important bits. But now *everyone* has an access to quick and easy referenceable communication to facilitate thoughtful response. It's called email and the company that tries to kill it will only bring strife and confusion upon itself.
First, the guy is hilarious. FTFA:
---
"For Wallace to comply, the state Department of Justice fingerprinted the couple and told Wallace he needed to show them such things as a solid security system for his product. Wallace sent a photograph of Buddy sitting on the front porch.
"These guys don't go for my humor," Wallace said. "Cops are the most humorless knotheads on the planet."
---
Also, wasn't this guy relatively safe via security through obscurity. Meth heads don't go around randomly seeking out any component but ephedrine. But now, this guy is a target.
Once you recognize someone is a victim due to your actions in the course of your regular duties, it becomes YOUR responsibility to make it right. Labeling something collateral damage doesn't absolve one of responsibility, but, instead, claims responsibility with mitigating circumstances. And if you're responsible for the harm, you're responsible for the fix.
I think the same of people who prefer to talk on the phone. Email keeps a trail of evidence. Email keeps people honest in business. Phones are for off-the-record communication, now.
When people call me in response to an email, I frequently think that they just don't know how to form coherent sentences and want to put the responsibility of communication fully on me instead of them explaining something on the record.
If you're an honest and forthcoming person, I think you're willing to use the text aspect of internet communication to be more so.
If you're a dishonest person, you probably see the utility of electronic communication for deception and deceive more.
I find this genuinely intriguing. If I'm cheap and lazy then I will be cheap and lazy... and confident:
"Yeah, I couldn't be bothered to spend 2 hours making small iced cakes for our potluck nor did I think it worthwhile to spend $39 on a dozen cupcakes when I could just get a Costco cake for a tenner. I see you brought fried chicken from Albertson's. Lemme get in on some of that..."
See? People confident about the insecurities derived from assumed social expectations help other people feel comfortable about their insecurities.
But that doesn't mean I don't understand. Some people feel very self-conscious about how they think they will be perceived. Some of those people have little choice but to associate with people who are genuinely judgmental about such frivolity. To them, I say, "Buy the $39 cupcakes and swap them out with the Sam's Club special. Keep the expensive ones for yourself just to spite those who would seek to evaluate you on the basis of the complimentary food you provide to others."
continued...
Of course, the "regular coffee" from these chain barrista places typically taste like cigarette ashes because they keep the same pot on high heat for 5 hours out of the day.
Yes and no. People will pay $3.95 for a coffee with the potential of being a high-maintenance tool (Tall soy mocha latte with almond sweetener and lightly iced). People are still not willing to pay more than $2 for a large cup of black coffee "with the sugar and cream behind you on the counter".
Of course, the "regular coffee" from these chain barrista places typically taste like
Are you talking about "Sprinkles"? There's one in Newport Beach and my partner and I went there, knowing we'd be wasting our money, to buy their cupcakes and make up our minds on the value of their boutique pastries. We spent $39 on a dozen assorted.
Our conclusions? The cake is no better than a correctly prepared Betty Crocker mix and the icing, while pretty, comes way too thick and very simple in flavor.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a "gourmet" hunter who thinks he can tell a $50 bottle of wine from a bottle of two-buck-Chuck. In fact, I will admit bias against these boutique places that give MASSIVE price mark-ups to otherwise cheap food under the banner of "gourmet" or "artisinal" (don't get me started on the "gourmet tamales" they sell at my local farmer's market...). So when I say a flavor is "simple", I'm saying it's nothing special that would justify such a massive cost increase.
Summary: Spending $39 on a dozen cupcakes was a waste of money. People who pay so much for a simple pastry are stupid (self included) and those who think they're eating something with amazing flavor and tastably high quality have been fooled.
I was at a conference in Oakland last week where a guy from Southern California Edison spoke about the future of electric vehicle charging. When asked about the cost to charge an EV via a level 1 charger through the night versus a level 3 (20-40 minute) quick charger during peak hours (when they're most likely to be used) he said that he didn't have the exact numbers on the *power* difference (though it's significant), but the dollar-per-fill-up difference will be extreme.
The Level 3 charger alone is expected to be $50,000 - $60,000 depending on existing infrastructure. That cost will have to be made up in fill-up cost.
Then there's the cost of the power at the time of the day.
Then there's the amount of power it takes to charge something so quickly.
He closed with "It will *definitely* be a premium service. We don't expect many to need or utilize the service."
So why is Tesla doing it? Oh yes... because they're catering to a crowd of luxury environmentalists... the crowd that shrank to, like, three with the crash. Tesla's business model of supporting electric vehicles on the backs of the super wealthy has failed... they're just floundering now.
I'll agree with choosing Al Franken because the guy's intelligent and doesn't seem to pull punches (comedian's instinct).
I'd say yes to Ron Paul because he's so unelectable that he may even respond to the Slashdot request out of desperation.
But this one... this one above all, I want to see the most. Our political system receives 100% from the concept of the will of The People. The People are not capable of (nor have they the time) holding conversations with the candidates of the political races affecting them. Instead, The People rely on the mass media to ask the questions they need answered. It is this role, as the intercessor, that the mass media has and it never fails to blow it. I know they're afraid of the high maintenance candidates storming off the set or looking foolish thus never returning to the network... BUT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
Given the responsibility not being met by the media in this nation, I echo the sentiment of the parent post: "Why the fuck they let politicians off the hook when they give non-answers to direct questions in interviews and debates."
Bring us a political newscaster -- let him/her answer questions!
The problem of automobile speeding & safety and the effectiveness of citations to facilitate safe driving is compound:
1 - People view cars as a recreational device with speed as the thrill.
2 - People view cars as a means to make up for their own poor planning with increased speed being their crutch. "Oh, I slept in 20 minutes... I'll just gas it a bit harder on the 405."
3 - People feel *really* safe in their cars. And they should. Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. have all been engineered to substitute for good judgement and consideration for others.
4 - A speeding citation affects a single person and may not actual be sufficiently severe to combat recidivism.
I've lived in Southern California for my whole life and the only things I've ever seen to slow people (aside from major traffic jams) is rain (omg weather!) and visual confirmation of a law enforcement vehicle. If people think that a police officer will pull him/her over for driving unsafely, they slow down. However, with police cars relatively few and far between, people speed.
Why does seeing a cop car affect people? Because more than having to pay a fine, most people are MORTIFIED by being pulled over. Others are afraid they'll get in trouble for other things in addition to their speed. Still others just want to prevent being kept from their appointments any longer than necessary.
So, if the fear of being pulled over is a better deterrent than just issuing citations, how do we increase the rate at which people abide by traffic laws? Put more police/highway patrol cars on the road. I'm not talking about fully-sworn $60k/year officers, either. I'm talking about people hired at $35k-45k to just write traffic tickets and drive around in official vehicles.
Or deputize me. When people are utter jerks on the road, my partner and I will pull people over and bust a part of their vehicles appropriate for the crime.
Skipping multiple lanes without signaling? -- That's both tail lights smashed out.
Driving on the shoulder to get ahead in a line of cars? -- That's 2 slashed tires.
Run a stop sign (without at least slowing)? -- Key the car.
Run a stop light? -- Smash the windshield.
Using the horn like a jerk? -- One headlight smashed out.
In fact... screw the more cars on the road. My being deputized will be good enough. Who wants in?
The TSA still exists because while most people hate dealing with their security check points and infringing on liberties, most people have grown to be afraid without them. Assuredly, if they were removed from the airports, people would feel "less secure".
Yes, FEEL.
That's also how science works. Every a lab lights up a CERN lights up the merry-go-round, they know the likelihood of finding the Higgs is incredibly small, but they hope... and they try.
So "the hope" isn't really a great way to peg a scam. Instead, you just have to wait for proof. Tonight's the night... so just wait and see.
Where I'm at, the faculty consistently get their options for merit and promotion.
It's been staff and graduate students whose wages were frozen for the last 5 years. And then the graduate student employees unionized, but they're still paying $1100 of their $1300 monthly wage for housing.
I was one of those "inspiring people". I got involved with higher educational outreach in 2001 (end of second year of undergrad). I kept my academic focus, but knew I was destined to be in education. I was one of the few people I knew that could/would remember what it was like to be in middle school and found it very easy to connect with the students I was helping. My abilities to adapt to people were perfect for the classroom. And I love learning and watching people learn. It was a perfect fit.
After graduation, I started working professionally in higher education outreach. I was on a federal grant... which was mismanaged and I was laid off. Ok-- a stumble. Then I went with another program. And it was mismanaged. Ok-- another stumble and a bit of anger. (This is when I figured out that incompetent people who know the right words to use in front of others will often work their way into the education industry as "easy money".)
So I took a temp job, staying in education so I don't lose that "spark" and applied to Education MA/Credential programs to actually become a teacher-- someone I had planned on doing after working at the higher ed level for a while, anyway. Acceptance letters and financial aid proposals come in, everything's looking great, and the economy tanks. Teacher education funding is slashed and teachers are being laid off. I get a new financial aid statement with massive cuts and it's not enough to pick up shop and move up-state and start over. I have to decline admission.
Now, education is under direct attack by corporations who want to lower everyone's standard of living. I, having a decade of experience in education, had zero expectation of great wages, but "knew" that when I was no longer able to teach, I would be able to retire safely without worry. I expected to work with $35,000 for my first 5 years (a portion of which I would spend on my own classes) and maybe hit $50,000 before I retire. I couldn't expect that anymore. I couldn't put my partner through the risk. Like many others, I couldn't risk following my passion to teach.
Oh... and I'm a techy, but an education-luddite. I hate computers in the class room except for the teacher's computer. They have no place in my opinion.
The Federal Student Loan program definitely increases the total cost of education... well... in a way. What it does is guarantee private (and public) businesses and departments revenue in the case of price increases.
Corporately-controlled housing is very aware of this and that's why rent is constantly and significantly going up around universities. When housing prices go up, the financial aid office figures it out, and financial aid awards are adjusted accordingly. Same with the general price of books, fuel, staff, administration, and faculty. But all that means is that when costs go up (either by choice or not), more loans are pulled out for each student and the students have to pay off even more in the future.
So yes, it's a problem. But the elimination of the Federal student loan program would only open up the field to private banks... and we already tell our students to do everything possible before getting a private bank loan. They're ruthless with their interest and pay schedules.
What's the solution? Here's a start. It just MAY be based on my experiences...
Step 1: Each public university (or uni. system) should have a salary cap on all administrators. The highest anyone should be paid for helping to run a public university should be $250,000 (at the system level. Local administrators should be capped at $150,000. Faculty should be capped at $125,000. Staff should be capped at $75,000.
Step 2: Universities should be directly involved with negotiating rent controlling the area around the university so that staff and students don't NEED so much money.
Step 3: For those universities with sufficient land, focus on on-campus housing and DO NOT make "luxury student housing". Nor luxury staff housing. Go utilitarian. Civil engineers know what people want and need. Students do not need brick portico entrances to their dorms.
That's a damn fine example of the right places to use electric vehicles!
I hold Slashdot to a much higher standard than you do, then. I think Slashdotters would assert that Teslas, driven like combustion sports cars on a track, are shit. I really don't think they would omit that very important qualifier because that's the only thing Clarkson tested-- track performance relative to a combustion sports car.
For further reference, check out the episode where a BMW M3 gets better mileage than a Prius.
Test conditions:
Both cars fill up and do 10 laps.
Prius was driven as fast as possible
The BMW just had to keep up with the Prius (not an issue).
There was hard acceleration and very little braking.
Under these test conditions, the Prius got 17.2 MPG, the M3 got 19.4 MPG.
Does this mean that the Prius is less fuel-efficient than a BMW M3? In those conditions- yes.
The criticism (faked or not) is that electric cars driven like super sports cars do not last long enough on the track. Regardless of how it played out on television, Tesla could have sent a response to Top Gear saying, "While we hope our regular drivers will not need to drive like Clarkson does on the track, we understand the demand for longer run time and are working on further extending the drive. We're not through, yet."
Clarkson would have praised that. And thus his audience would have praised that. And Tesla would be praised.
That's called PR and that's all this is about. Tesla asserts that Top Gear's massive influence in the industry (of cars regular people cant' buy) has, can, or will hurt the sales of their electric sports car. They could have omitted the courts altogether and just taken the potential PR and run with it.
Hydrogen fuel cell is electric. Clarkson has said in the past that hydrogen fuel cell cars are the *best* electric option to his (then) knowledge because it doesn't require plugging in for hours and draining an already strained power grid while still burning fossil fuels to power the cars. Of course, I don't think he fully understood the difficulty of obtaining and transporting hydrogen (most recent research and breakthroughs excluded).
He thinks the electric cars need to be made un-fun to be made green (look at the Nissan Leaf). And when he saw and first drove the Tesla, he was excited at being wrong... but then he figured out that he can't drive it as hard as a combustion car for too long.
But I don't think electric cars are the future either. It may have to do with my ground level experience in transportation and infrastructure, but if electric-battery vehicles are going to be a part of our future, they're going to have to be hybrids. Either plug-in fossil fuel, plug-in diesel, plug-in hyrdrogen, etc. But the main source of fuel cannot be our electrical grid. The grid can only be a means of topping off the batteries during off-peak hours.
Koenigsegg put a super car on Top Gear. It was not good enough. There was not enough down force in the rear, the car lost control, and it crashed. Top Gear said, "This thing REALLY needs a spoiler."
Koenigsegg sued Top Gear. Just kidding, they put a spoiler on it and sent it back to Top Gear. They took it around the track again and it got an amazing time. No crashes.
No, I'm not saying that Top Gear can instantly diagnose car problems and their words should be heeded at all times. What I'm saying is that Koenigsegg made off with massive good PR by taking criticism from some of the most watched television personalities in the world, improved their car, and, showing no hard feelings, gave the car back to them. They didn't call mommy and daddy claiming their driver crashed their car. They didn't claim slander. They knew that they had the opportunity to show how dedicated they were to making an amazing car and took it.
Tesla, well... We breed them litigious here.