I think that poor guidance counseling is a big problem. We tell kids to go to college to study something that they're interested in, and not what they could be successful at in life.
Lots of people love watching CSI, and they thought building the egg-drop device (where nobody got less than a B) was fun too. So, a science career sounds like fun and probably decently paying.
Then they get to college and find out that scientists spend a lot of time studying books, reading journals, and even biologists need to know some calculus (let alone the physical sciences). It isn't nearly as fun or accessible as what they were taught in high school, and they find themselves failing.
And, by the time they figure this out they've wasted a year or two of their life, and probably $20k at least. That is a VERY expensive way to learn.
By all means show kids the fun stuff in science early on, but also show them what REAL science is like. If they can't handle spending hundreds of hours repeating tedious experiments (which took considerable time to think up) then they're not really cut out to be a scientist. Some disciplines are less rigorous, but if you can't handle calculus even at a basic level you probably won't be doing much more than feeding the fish at the local aquarium or whatever.
His point is that you can get things that include cradle-like docks for iPhones. You can also get cases for them that provide access to the headphone plug and such. Most generic Android phones have nothing like this available - you can get a generic cradle of some sort and a cable that you plug in, assuming the cradle doesn't block one of the ports.
When I put my Android phone in a car holder so that I can see maps for navigation it stresses the cable/port a little, since the holder actually blocks it and only the fact that it involves foam padding lets me torque the thing slightly to get the cable in.
So, what's wrong with USB anyway? I LIKE the fact that I can plug my android phone into a $2 car charger, and not have to buy the $35 sold at the phone store.
They don't really need a standard connector so much as a standard protocol for communicating over it beyond just filesystem access/etc.
And yes, phone commercials that barely even show you the phone are really annoying. I really don't care that their CGI robot can smash a CGI alien or whatever - I'm buying a phone, not a combat robot...
I too think that live replication is "overvalued" - not because it doesn't create real value, but because most companies are far too short-sighted to use it.
At work the drive for virtualization is driven by one thing alone - money. If the virtualized solution suffers major performance problems that isn't an issue at all. I'm sure with VMWare you can save 80% of the money and deliver 110% of the performance. However, at work they would aim more to save 82% of the money and deliver 20% of the performance. In such an atmosphere, do you think they are really concerned about a blade server running 200 virtual servers going down?
So, are they locking up the parts, or aren't they?
If they are truly locking up the parts, then making truly competitive products should be difficult or impossible. That is a clear anti-trust problem.
If they aren't locking up the parts then obviously others can build competitive models, and the people who claim they are locking up the parts are full of hot air.
So, which is it?
If you plan to manufacture a million widgets then buying a million widget screens isn't locking out competition - it is just taking care of your supply chain. On the other hand, if you plan to make a million widgets and tell everybody that you'll only buy parts from them if they exclusively supply you despite the fact that they can make 50X what you need, then that is clearly a monopolistic move - you're trying to prevent competition.
Exclusive deals should be banned in almost all circumstances. They're almost always used to let a company extend an existing monopoly (or near-monopoly). This often makes new markets non-competitive before they are even established.
The hubble is probably a lot heavier than a typical satellite, and I suspect you'd have to prep it so that it doesn't fall apart when subjected to stress, or damage the shuttle in the process.
Landing weight for any glider is obviously an issue (especially one already covered in ceramic tiles and carrying a pile of lifeless engines). Re-entry weight is another big issue, as well as center-of-gravity/etc. Every pound of mass on the shuttle is just that much more kinetic energy being converted to heat blasting against the heat shield.
Do NOT bundle your libraries. Just list your dependencies, and the distros will supply them. And if one of those libraries is not backwards-compatible within the same SO versions pound on them mercilessly as there is no excuse for that in the unix world where you can have libfoo.3.1.so and libfoo.2.2.so on the same system.
Half of my job as a distro package maintainer is stripping out all the libraries that get bundled, and the other half is trying to guess what the real dependencies are. Oh, and the third half is fixing the security problems in the bundled code that I missed.
Bundling libraries doesn't just bloat downloads. It bloats RAM use since your personal version of libfoo can't be shared, and it tends to propagate security problems, or at least it forces the user to download all of chrome or whatever anytime libz has an exploit.
I see it as a permissions system for programs that is LONG LONG OVERDO and still don't understand how unix people were happy with the chroot jail hack (or why windows was happy to give apps root access) for such a long time.
Agreed. There have been various attempts to improve the unix situation, but they all suffer from a lack of support from developers on individual apps.
Some of the band-aids include POSIX capabilities (basically limited suid-like capabilities), sudo (more for interactive tasks but it could be used by an app), and things like grsecurity and other kernel hardening patches that increase the strength of chroot jails (getting root in a chroot in standard unix isn't all that contained, but the hardening patches make it much harder to get out). And of course there is SELinux and other MAC schemes. They all suffer from a lack of developer support since nobody has had the guts to say "support it or we drop your software".
Agreed on all points, but then again it wasn't until fairly recently that anybody spotted problems with Newtonian physics.
Physics is based on data, and data is collected only from what you can observe. If all you look at is billiard balls then you'll never come up with relativity. As our ability to gather information about the universe increases we may find more and more stuff that doesn't fit the current mold, and that's a good thing.
Dark matter hints that we don't fully understand gravity on the large scale, and of course we know it breaks down at the quantum level as well. It might be the case that there are fields running through the universe on VERY large scales that impact what we perceive as physical constants. If an intelligent being could somehow exist in a universe of constant temperature, it would be hard for them to come up with the laws of thermodynamics. Well, if some field has almost no potential change across a light year of space in our vicinity, then whatever it governs is a force we may find it very difficult to explore.
I'm far from an Apple fanboy and haven't cared to buy their products in ages, but I'm glad to see vendors starting to do some of this stuff.
Basically Apple is just implementing Mandatory Access Control (MAC). We Linux fans love to boast about SELinux, but SELinux is just a way of sandboxing everything via MAC.
Now, the problem with Apple is that when they do this they make themselves into the system administrator, which is inappropriate. The computer owner should always be the one in charge, but they should be free to delegate this authority to Apple if they can later revoke that decision and take back control of their device.
I'd love to see Linux distros set up to operate under MAC by default. You basically just need to define some conventions around where apps should put their data, and how apps should go about sharing data. Then you just need to make the policies part of the packages and you have a system that is easy to operate under SELinux. The problem right now is that Linux software developers are not unlike Windows developers in assuming that the app runs with broad permissions, and bolting on MAC after the fact is like trying to lock down a copy of Windows XP when running apps written for Windows 98.
When you debate somebody you find the fault in the argument the other side is making, not make up an argument for them that is dumb and refute that.
If the guy you're talking to doesn't profess to believe in Angels then arguing against their existence is just a straw man. Instead focus on the claims that actually are being made and refute those.
If your point is that not all religious people on the planet agree on who is right, well, that's a big revelation. Thanks!:)
At my work the IE6, XP, and Office 2K3 is no big deal, really. The problem is the amount of RAM combined with full-disk encryption software and the most bloated antivirus software around with the most intrustive settings you can find. Oh, and the fact that it must be running a full software inventory or something every time I log in.
When I boot the thing up in the morning it takes 20 minutes before the thing becomes remotely usable, and it guzzles battery when unplugged. Sure, it is a bit old, but computers that are a few years old shouldn't be a big problem if you aren't thrashing the drives continuously with stuff that just HAS to run 10 seconds after you start it up all at the same time.
Sounds lovely. Good thing my phone will ignore any "bullets" you send its way or password policies you set. If you didn't deploy the hardware, then you don't know what it will do when you ask it nicely to self-destruct, or if it is telling the truth when you nicely ask it what it will do under such circumstances.
Ultimately, though, the lawyers don't really care. The hoops just exist so that they can check the compliance box, so everybody jumps through them.
The problem is that apparently several prominant pieces of software have already broken FHS by not supporting booting without/usr present. I've heard that udev rules are a big part of the problem - especially those involving bluetooth. So, Fedora's suggestion is to just mount/usr earlier and not rely on init to do it. Once you do that having a separate/usr/bin and/bin doesn't add any value.
Quite a few distros are likely to follow, eventually, since they'll end up having to fork/patch more and more stuff to do things their own way.
Wow, this is like reading last month's gentoo-dev threads all over again...:) We just hashed out this whole argument in just about every direction it can go. Your point was one I originally advocated. The problem is that it is like spitting into the wind.
Udev is apparently the problem, especially where bluetooth support is involved. Try to boot a system with a bluetooth keyboard without/usr mounted before init runs and most distros will make your life hard.
So, they're basically turning the bug into a feature and saying, well, why not put EVERYTHING in/usr and then put it on a separate filesystem and move the mounting logic to dracut or whatever.
Ultimately unless you want to fork and rewrite udev or try to convince them of the merits of your argument are just academic.
Note that while large, single mount, flesystems are prevalent these days in the PC area, the same is not true of embedded systems or classic clustering.
Actually, I think clustering/etc is one of their main use cases.
Their logic is to put EVERYTHING in/usr and then mount it on a separate partition, read-only. The initramfs would be designed to mount/usr before running init. Doing an OS upgrade just amounts to mounting a different/usr, since EVERYTHING is in there. You'd only put per-machine modifications to the default configuration anywhere else. In a cluster you could have a bunch of machines all mount the same/usr.
On the gentoo-dev mailing list there have been debates about this as more and more software requires/usr mounted at boot anyway (a lot of udev rules especially those concerning bluetooth in particular).
The reason most other distros went with putting 32-bit stuff in/lib early on was porting. When amd64 came along EVERYTHING already worked 32-bit, and a subset of that could be compiled for amd64 without much issue. The problem was that the stuff that tended not to work out-of-the-box on amd64 was stuff that desktop users would have trouble giving up, like mplayer, flash, etc.
By keeping 32-bit stuff in/lib you could just take 32-bit binaries and plop them into the system and it would work fine without modification. If you made/lib 64-bit then you'd have to relink everything, which creates a lot of hassle when the whole build system is broken to begin with.
Over time many distros moved to putting 64-bit stuff in/lib as the 32-bit issues got fixed, or at least mitigated.
The whole point of legacy support, however, is that you have to keep the legacy part the same as what you used to do, and make the changes somewhere that the legacy software won't notice. You make fancy new API calls, you don't change the behavior of existing one, and so on...
The problem with solving this at the level of the individual file is that it takes care of big files like videos, but does nothing to handle the bazillion little files like what you find in/usr,/var,/etc, etc. Collectively they use quite a bit of space, though clearly comparatively little if you're talking about a MythTV box.
Do RAW files even compress using external utilities (at least enough to make it worthwhile)? They're internally compressed and they're lossless multimedia which is a tough nut to compress in any case.
The best candidates for compression are things like random data files that don't employ internal compression, documents, executables, and text files. The files that individually tend to be large almost always employ internal compression already (video, audio, etc). Filesystem compression is good for taking care of the other 80% of the files that didn't warrant individual treatment.
I was scratching my head on this one - I didn't realize that technology was something that was sold in some store that companies line up to buy. Apparently Apple bought the last copy of "Siri" and nobody else can have it now.
Perhaps it is just a sign of the times, but it wouldn't have even occurred to me to think that technology was some kind of zero-sum game where inventions are bought and sold and new ones never actually come about.
The assertion was that Google can't make their own Siri since there are no other companies on the market doing the same thing for them to buy. I guess it never occurred to an MBA that Siri is nothing more than a big collection of C code or whatever, and replicating it just involves writing more C code to do the same thing.
There is a tradition in private industry of keeping wages secret. I think that everybody likes to think that they're a good negotiator and that they're the best paid person in the department. However, the guys who work out your salary are actually professionals at such things and they've almost certainly given you a deal that you might not be happy with.
Just another case where we shoot ourselves in the feet over privacy...
Yup - at work they have a goal of doing a certain level of business with minority-owned companies.
Well, most people would picture that and think of small businesses with maybe 50 employees or whatever and think that this is good for the economy, even if a bit quota-ish.
Well, just the other day we had to procure some stuff and the cost was several times what I remember paying in the past. Sure enough there is only one approved supplier and it is minority owned - it is some huge company so the end result is that one minority family that was probably wealthy to start gets an extra $75M/yr in revenue or whatever.
I love how if you sue somebody for more than $20 you can get a trial by jury, but if somebody gets fined for $500 it is an administrative issue and no jury trial is allowed. If you actually had a right to a trial by jury in all cases these kinds of revenue-collecting laws would be unenforceable overnight.
Yup. I always get a chuckle whenever I see the credits roll at the end of a movie. Imagine if your roll of toilet paper had a list of the full employee roster for Kimberly Clark or whatever on it. Actually, that isn't a bad idea since toilet paper is one of the few products that could actually find the room for it...
Well, education can't really be a bubble in the classic sense since it is entered into with the expectation that it has zero resale value.
However, if next year education were to be free then anybody who just graduated $100k in debt would certainly feel unhappy about their decision to spend that money...
Slashdot Mirror
I think that poor guidance counseling is a big problem. We tell kids to go to college to study something that they're interested in, and not what they could be successful at in life.
Lots of people love watching CSI, and they thought building the egg-drop device (where nobody got less than a B) was fun too. So, a science career sounds like fun and probably decently paying.
Then they get to college and find out that scientists spend a lot of time studying books, reading journals, and even biologists need to know some calculus (let alone the physical sciences). It isn't nearly as fun or accessible as what they were taught in high school, and they find themselves failing.
And, by the time they figure this out they've wasted a year or two of their life, and probably $20k at least. That is a VERY expensive way to learn.
By all means show kids the fun stuff in science early on, but also show them what REAL science is like. If they can't handle spending hundreds of hours repeating tedious experiments (which took considerable time to think up) then they're not really cut out to be a scientist. Some disciplines are less rigorous, but if you can't handle calculus even at a basic level you probably won't be doing much more than feeding the fish at the local aquarium or whatever.
His point is that you can get things that include cradle-like docks for iPhones. You can also get cases for them that provide access to the headphone plug and such. Most generic Android phones have nothing like this available - you can get a generic cradle of some sort and a cable that you plug in, assuming the cradle doesn't block one of the ports.
When I put my Android phone in a car holder so that I can see maps for navigation it stresses the cable/port a little, since the holder actually blocks it and only the fact that it involves foam padding lets me torque the thing slightly to get the cable in.
So, what's wrong with USB anyway? I LIKE the fact that I can plug my android phone into a $2 car charger, and not have to buy the $35 sold at the phone store.
They don't really need a standard connector so much as a standard protocol for communicating over it beyond just filesystem access/etc.
And yes, phone commercials that barely even show you the phone are really annoying. I really don't care that their CGI robot can smash a CGI alien or whatever - I'm buying a phone, not a combat robot...
I too think that live replication is "overvalued" - not because it doesn't create real value, but because most companies are far too short-sighted to use it.
At work the drive for virtualization is driven by one thing alone - money. If the virtualized solution suffers major performance problems that isn't an issue at all. I'm sure with VMWare you can save 80% of the money and deliver 110% of the performance. However, at work they would aim more to save 82% of the money and deliver 20% of the performance. In such an atmosphere, do you think they are really concerned about a blade server running 200 virtual servers going down?
So, are they locking up the parts, or aren't they?
If they are truly locking up the parts, then making truly competitive products should be difficult or impossible. That is a clear anti-trust problem.
If they aren't locking up the parts then obviously others can build competitive models, and the people who claim they are locking up the parts are full of hot air.
So, which is it?
If you plan to manufacture a million widgets then buying a million widget screens isn't locking out competition - it is just taking care of your supply chain. On the other hand, if you plan to make a million widgets and tell everybody that you'll only buy parts from them if they exclusively supply you despite the fact that they can make 50X what you need, then that is clearly a monopolistic move - you're trying to prevent competition.
Exclusive deals should be banned in almost all circumstances. They're almost always used to let a company extend an existing monopoly (or near-monopoly). This often makes new markets non-competitive before they are even established.
The hubble is probably a lot heavier than a typical satellite, and I suspect you'd have to prep it so that it doesn't fall apart when subjected to stress, or damage the shuttle in the process.
Landing weight for any glider is obviously an issue (especially one already covered in ceramic tiles and carrying a pile of lifeless engines). Re-entry weight is another big issue, as well as center-of-gravity/etc. Every pound of mass on the shuttle is just that much more kinetic energy being converted to heat blasting against the heat shield.
UGH!!!!! NO!!!!!!!
Do NOT bundle your libraries. Just list your dependencies, and the distros will supply them. And if one of those libraries is not backwards-compatible within the same SO versions pound on them mercilessly as there is no excuse for that in the unix world where you can have libfoo.3.1.so and libfoo.2.2.so on the same system.
Half of my job as a distro package maintainer is stripping out all the libraries that get bundled, and the other half is trying to guess what the real dependencies are. Oh, and the third half is fixing the security problems in the bundled code that I missed.
Bundling libraries doesn't just bloat downloads. It bloats RAM use since your personal version of libfoo can't be shared, and it tends to propagate security problems, or at least it forces the user to download all of chrome or whatever anytime libz has an exploit.
I see it as a permissions system for programs that is LONG LONG OVERDO and still don't understand how unix people were happy with the chroot jail hack (or why windows was happy to give apps root access) for such a long time.
Agreed. There have been various attempts to improve the unix situation, but they all suffer from a lack of support from developers on individual apps.
Some of the band-aids include POSIX capabilities (basically limited suid-like capabilities), sudo (more for interactive tasks but it could be used by an app), and things like grsecurity and other kernel hardening patches that increase the strength of chroot jails (getting root in a chroot in standard unix isn't all that contained, but the hardening patches make it much harder to get out). And of course there is SELinux and other MAC schemes. They all suffer from a lack of developer support since nobody has had the guts to say "support it or we drop your software".
Agreed on all points, but then again it wasn't until fairly recently that anybody spotted problems with Newtonian physics.
Physics is based on data, and data is collected only from what you can observe. If all you look at is billiard balls then you'll never come up with relativity. As our ability to gather information about the universe increases we may find more and more stuff that doesn't fit the current mold, and that's a good thing.
Dark matter hints that we don't fully understand gravity on the large scale, and of course we know it breaks down at the quantum level as well. It might be the case that there are fields running through the universe on VERY large scales that impact what we perceive as physical constants. If an intelligent being could somehow exist in a universe of constant temperature, it would be hard for them to come up with the laws of thermodynamics. Well, if some field has almost no potential change across a light year of space in our vicinity, then whatever it governs is a force we may find it very difficult to explore.
I'm far from an Apple fanboy and haven't cared to buy their products in ages, but I'm glad to see vendors starting to do some of this stuff.
Basically Apple is just implementing Mandatory Access Control (MAC). We Linux fans love to boast about SELinux, but SELinux is just a way of sandboxing everything via MAC.
Now, the problem with Apple is that when they do this they make themselves into the system administrator, which is inappropriate. The computer owner should always be the one in charge, but they should be free to delegate this authority to Apple if they can later revoke that decision and take back control of their device.
I'd love to see Linux distros set up to operate under MAC by default. You basically just need to define some conventions around where apps should put their data, and how apps should go about sharing data. Then you just need to make the policies part of the packages and you have a system that is easy to operate under SELinux. The problem right now is that Linux software developers are not unlike Windows developers in assuming that the app runs with broad permissions, and bolting on MAC after the fact is like trying to lock down a copy of Windows XP when running apps written for Windows 98.
When you debate somebody you find the fault in the argument the other side is making, not make up an argument for them that is dumb and refute that.
If the guy you're talking to doesn't profess to believe in Angels then arguing against their existence is just a straw man. Instead focus on the claims that actually are being made and refute those.
If your point is that not all religious people on the planet agree on who is right, well, that's a big revelation. Thanks! :)
At my work the IE6, XP, and Office 2K3 is no big deal, really. The problem is the amount of RAM combined with full-disk encryption software and the most bloated antivirus software around with the most intrustive settings you can find. Oh, and the fact that it must be running a full software inventory or something every time I log in.
When I boot the thing up in the morning it takes 20 minutes before the thing becomes remotely usable, and it guzzles battery when unplugged. Sure, it is a bit old, but computers that are a few years old shouldn't be a big problem if you aren't thrashing the drives continuously with stuff that just HAS to run 10 seconds after you start it up all at the same time.
Sounds lovely. Good thing my phone will ignore any "bullets" you send its way or password policies you set. If you didn't deploy the hardware, then you don't know what it will do when you ask it nicely to self-destruct, or if it is telling the truth when you nicely ask it what it will do under such circumstances.
Ultimately, though, the lawyers don't really care. The hoops just exist so that they can check the compliance box, so everybody jumps through them.
The problem is that apparently several prominant pieces of software have already broken FHS by not supporting booting without /usr present. I've heard that udev rules are a big part of the problem - especially those involving bluetooth. So, Fedora's suggestion is to just mount /usr earlier and not rely on init to do it. Once you do that having a separate /usr/bin and /bin doesn't add any value.
Quite a few distros are likely to follow, eventually, since they'll end up having to fork/patch more and more stuff to do things their own way.
Wow, this is like reading last month's gentoo-dev threads all over again... :) We just hashed out this whole argument in just about every direction it can go. Your point was one I originally advocated. The problem is that it is like spitting into the wind.
Udev is apparently the problem, especially where bluetooth support is involved. Try to boot a system with a bluetooth keyboard without /usr mounted before init runs and most distros will make your life hard.
So, they're basically turning the bug into a feature and saying, well, why not put EVERYTHING in /usr and then put it on a separate filesystem and move the mounting logic to dracut or whatever.
Ultimately unless you want to fork and rewrite udev or try to convince them of the merits of your argument are just academic.
Note that while large, single mount, flesystems are prevalent these days in the PC area, the same is not true of embedded systems or classic clustering.
Actually, I think clustering/etc is one of their main use cases.
Their logic is to put EVERYTHING in /usr and then mount it on a separate partition, read-only. The initramfs would be designed to mount /usr before running init. Doing an OS upgrade just amounts to mounting a different /usr, since EVERYTHING is in there. You'd only put per-machine modifications to the default configuration anywhere else. In a cluster you could have a bunch of machines all mount the same /usr.
On the gentoo-dev mailing list there have been debates about this as more and more software requires /usr mounted at boot anyway (a lot of udev rules especially those concerning bluetooth in particular).
The reason most other distros went with putting 32-bit stuff in /lib early on was porting. When amd64 came along EVERYTHING already worked 32-bit, and a subset of that could be compiled for amd64 without much issue. The problem was that the stuff that tended not to work out-of-the-box on amd64 was stuff that desktop users would have trouble giving up, like mplayer, flash, etc.
By keeping 32-bit stuff in /lib you could just take 32-bit binaries and plop them into the system and it would work fine without modification. If you made /lib 64-bit then you'd have to relink everything, which creates a lot of hassle when the whole build system is broken to begin with.
Over time many distros moved to putting 64-bit stuff in /lib as the 32-bit issues got fixed, or at least mitigated.
The whole point of legacy support, however, is that you have to keep the legacy part the same as what you used to do, and make the changes somewhere that the legacy software won't notice. You make fancy new API calls, you don't change the behavior of existing one, and so on...
Most files do not use codecs at all.
The problem with solving this at the level of the individual file is that it takes care of big files like videos, but does nothing to handle the bazillion little files like what you find in /usr, /var, /etc, etc. Collectively they use quite a bit of space, though clearly comparatively little if you're talking about a MythTV box.
Do RAW files even compress using external utilities (at least enough to make it worthwhile)? They're internally compressed and they're lossless multimedia which is a tough nut to compress in any case.
The best candidates for compression are things like random data files that don't employ internal compression, documents, executables, and text files. The files that individually tend to be large almost always employ internal compression already (video, audio, etc). Filesystem compression is good for taking care of the other 80% of the files that didn't warrant individual treatment.
I was scratching my head on this one - I didn't realize that technology was something that was sold in some store that companies line up to buy. Apparently Apple bought the last copy of "Siri" and nobody else can have it now.
Perhaps it is just a sign of the times, but it wouldn't have even occurred to me to think that technology was some kind of zero-sum game where inventions are bought and sold and new ones never actually come about.
The assertion was that Google can't make their own Siri since there are no other companies on the market doing the same thing for them to buy. I guess it never occurred to an MBA that Siri is nothing more than a big collection of C code or whatever, and replicating it just involves writing more C code to do the same thing.
There is a tradition in private industry of keeping wages secret. I think that everybody likes to think that they're a good negotiator and that they're the best paid person in the department. However, the guys who work out your salary are actually professionals at such things and they've almost certainly given you a deal that you might not be happy with.
Just another case where we shoot ourselves in the feet over privacy...
Yup - at work they have a goal of doing a certain level of business with minority-owned companies.
Well, most people would picture that and think of small businesses with maybe 50 employees or whatever and think that this is good for the economy, even if a bit quota-ish.
Well, just the other day we had to procure some stuff and the cost was several times what I remember paying in the past. Sure enough there is only one approved supplier and it is minority owned - it is some huge company so the end result is that one minority family that was probably wealthy to start gets an extra $75M/yr in revenue or whatever.
I love how if you sue somebody for more than $20 you can get a trial by jury, but if somebody gets fined for $500 it is an administrative issue and no jury trial is allowed. If you actually had a right to a trial by jury in all cases these kinds of revenue-collecting laws would be unenforceable overnight.
Yup. I always get a chuckle whenever I see the credits roll at the end of a movie. Imagine if your roll of toilet paper had a list of the full employee roster for Kimberly Clark or whatever on it. Actually, that isn't a bad idea since toilet paper is one of the few products that could actually find the room for it...
Well, education can't really be a bubble in the classic sense since it is entered into with the expectation that it has zero resale value.
However, if next year education were to be free then anybody who just graduated $100k in debt would certainly feel unhappy about their decision to spend that money...