#1 - Federal loan guarantees do play a part. #2 - Showing that your college is "exclusive" by charging far more than community or state colleges plays a role, too. #3 - Exploiting the parental desire to pay more for "exclusive" colleges (especially in the US South on the part of racist white parents wanting to get their kids out of the "colleges where those niggers go"). #4 - Private universities generally charge ALL students what would often be an "out of state" rate: going out-of-state to a State College will run you on average $18k/year while private universities charge, in-state or out-of-state, an average of $25k.
Now, take a look at that figure. Take 20% off of the $25k - to account for state funding - and what do you have? $20k. Subtract another 10% to account for the lower pay of employees in state institutions as opposed to private and - guess what - now you see where the $18k out-of-state figure fits.
The math works. The reason tuition charged to students skyrocketed is because of cuts in state funding to state institutions that had to be made up in tuition hikes.
Funny, you "anonymous coward", I know people at the OWS protests. They've told my NO SUCH THING. I've told them my perspective, just as I stated before - 90% agree with me, the other 10% disagree only on the level of regulation needed.
So in essence, you're full of shit and trying to beat up on a strawman rather than talking to them about their beliefs. That would make you typical of the right-wing groups who seem to believe lassez-faire anarchism is the way to go.
Of course, there's also the theory (before he was finally killed, and in conspiracy theory circles still going on since nobody saw the body really prior to the abrupt "burial at sea") that Osama bin Laden had been killed years earlier and that the various radio broadcasts - note that after a certain date there were no more videos, just audio - were the work either of canny computer splicing or a simple voice-actor double.
Which reminds me... seen Elvis lately? Word is he's lost 100 lbs and was at Disney last week;)
Additionally, start looking at how colleges are funded. 15 years ago, a "State College" meant that the institution was more than 50% funded by the state (e.g. tax and tariff and fee revenues). The cost was spread out, and the tuition costs were much lower.
Tuition costs have "risen" basically on par with how state funding has fallen. Today, a "state college" gets between 15 and 20% "state funding" and the rest comes out of tuition. In other words, much more of the cost has been placed on the backs of the students, with the EXPECTATION that these students will have "federally guaranteed student loans" so that either the student winds up a slave to student debt, or if they default or die, the federal government picks up the tab.
Welcome to the "conservative funding" shell game...
The program was scaled back drastically after it came out that most of the companies weren't providing any real training at all and were just using these people as free labor. Shocking, huh?
Unfettered, unregulated capitalism at work.
This is not to say that total socialism is the solution. The solution is somewhere midway - a tightly regulated capitalism that prevents abuses and provides a safety net for those who are ruined or harmed by the uncaring, unthinking actions of others while still providing rewards for innovators and hard workers.
Now, you may be liable for some form of damages/action in a civil lawsuit thereby...
Getting back to the root of the issue - Canada doesn't have proper free speech protections (as the abuses by their so-called "human rights commission" indicate). That's what makes such a seemingly minor court case seem so important - the protection of unpopular speech from repressive government action or repressive action by determined individuals does not exist in Canada. Even the ability to say "See, these guys over in (country X with proper freedom of speech protection) say the following" is curtailed, sadly.
Oddly enough, the Earth seems to have no problem dealing with recycling waste. All it needs is a goodly variety of fish, insects, bivalves, and other organisms (both micro and macro) to handle the responsibility.
The problem with Biodome experiments, and any living environment we construct artificially, is that we necessarily screw up and fail to include enough organisms to occupy all niches in the amount needed. The molds that popped up in MIR and the ISS happened because that was the precise sort of environment in which those molds happened to thrive, while other organisms that normally would keep them in balance by competing for resources weren't brought up.
tl;dr version - Fish peed in your drinking water. Get over it and bring along a fucking aquarium rather than trying to do everything with "space age technology." Resources would be better spent on developing and refining either artificial gravity or controlled spin gravity substitutes.
Apple developed a device the revolutionized the tablet market overnight.
No. Apple made a pretty fucking stupid device that was essentially a phoneless smartphone for people with hands the size of Andre the Giant or Peter Mayhew's.
If Apple really wants, they'll just order so many fucking iphones and iPads from the screen providers in Taiwan and Korea that Samsung will never see another of their phones or Galaxy tablets made for a couple years. Either Samsung will cave, or they'll die.
Don't think it's for real? Look at the delays on the last generation of Android tablets - square on the manufacturers who kept delaying screen runs in order to keep Apple orders going instead.
You're really insanely obsessed with the notion that being even slightly responsible is "going Pol Pot", aren't you?
I recycle cans and bottles. Doesn't make me a fucking mass murdering dictator. I leave that kind of behavior to Republican "I have the right to do whatever I want no matter who it hurts" assholes like yourself.
Of course, that's because he was willing to RAISE taxes multiple times during his administration to prevent deficit spending (mention this to conservatives, provide evidence, and they'll call you a heretic these days).
The cult of Reagan has no idea who Reagan actually was, sadly. And thus, just as the Democrat Party famously left Reagan, the Republican Party has now left most of the US.
For the love of all that is sensible, you are maddeningly stupid.
So what; mankind's been around longer than 6th Century BC.
And at one time some of them believed that the world was on the back of a giant fucking turtle. Today, the round earth is "common sense." Science occasionally advances common sense, who knew?
Yes, I know that, I am not a moron. Nonetheless, until the experiments had been done, the notion that over short distances heavier objects would fall faster than light ones was widespread.
An apple will, in fact, fall faster than a leaf from the height of a tree (which is a pretty fucking short distance). See previous.
And on and on... there is a difference between common sense and religious asshattery. Stop ascribing the results of the latter to the former.
Far better in solving the problem is Instant Runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting). It ably allows people to vote for their party of primary preference, while still allowing secondary preference to be heard and impact the election (for example, the pro-isolationist wing of the Libertarian Party could happily vote Libertarian first, Republican second while the pro-dope-smoking wing of the Libertarian Party could happily vote Libertarian first, Democrat second).
Common sense is what told people the world is flat
Uhm no, what told people the world was flat was a limited perceptive distance beyond which "nobody had ever gone." The Greeks had posited the idea of a round earth as early as the 6th century BC, worked out through observations of polar star movement and altitude differences.
heavy objects fall faster than light objects
Actually, in the resistance of air, "light" objects of sufficient area have a much lower terminal velocity than heavier objects. Thus they do, in fact, fall faster. The idea that gravity is acting on them differently is incorrect, but that's all.
time is absolute and particles either go one way or another
For purposes of daily use, treating them as such simplifies the math while remaining useful. In detailed physics, no, but don't underestimate the idea of the useful approximation.
Common sense is what people use to demonstrate that fish can't turn into monkeys, or that you can't evolve an eye.
Oh for the love of... no, that's not "common sense", that is religious fuckwittery. There is a big difference.
It tells you that if loads of people get better when using homeopathic "remedies", there must be something in it.
No... again, that's not "common sense." That's a permutation of Argumentation By Authority.
Common sense is appealed to by those who can't produce any controlled trial basis for their suggested "improvements" to healthcare/whatever but want them implemented anyway, regardless of cost.Common sense and science are not good friends. And if you still don't believe me, go Google for "agw common sense" and see where it gets you.
Common sense tells ME that if it is valid, it can be scientifically tested. Common sense tells me also that people like you - who ascribe to "common sense" things that are demonstrably not - are buffoons.
Just what percentage of the people living in New Orleans are involved in in the port, gas terminal or fishing? Be generous and count the shopkeepers, schoolteachers, policemen, plumbers, etc and such required to supply the needs of the dockworkers and fishermen and their families. New Orleans should be at most 20% of its current population.
Cities grow. This is the nature of cities. Shops grow. There's a whole gambling industry there (bet you forgot that) - call it entertainment and tourism both. The rest of the places you mention are tied into a local economy. Nothing pops up "just to pop up", nothing happens in a vacuum. The population of a city grows because needs of the people there are met by increases in both business and population.
And as well you know, the French established the city where they did because (A) it had a semi-protected harbor and (B) the floodwash delta was very fertile farmland. Conducive to - dare I say it - growing a relatively large city for the time period.
Tell me again why we are growing cities there instead of pricing things such that most new growth happens a few miles inland where it doesn't flood every couple of years?
Flood plains are land "nobody wants." Therefore people who want to build Really Fucking Cheaply (and avoid property taxation!) will build there. If you want to re-jigger the system and change the rules for how it's going to work, and try to make it pricier to live there, go ahead. But you're going to have to accept that this is going to require the intervention of what you right-wing kooks call "big government" to make happen, and that it's going to come at the cost of preventing farmers from having the access they have grown to expect in terms of economic interaction otherwise.
No. The cult of "I saw outlying anecdote #32 therefore the whole damn system is fucked up" need to all be rounded up and shot.
DATA are what is necessary for making an actual, informed decision on policy matters. "One person had a bad experience therefore we need to rework the whole system" - if 99,999 other people got the RIGHT result, the anecdote is a fucking outlier and of no value in making an informed decision.
Ronald Reagan: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me."
Of course, old Ronnie lowered taxes initially, followed by RAISING taxes multiple times later in his administration to... balance the budget. Try telling that to these foaming-mouthed Tea Partiers today, they'll have an aneurism.
In much the same way I can say of myself today: "I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me."
And if more people understood there wouldn't be a problem.
Again, for the love of sanity: we NEED people to live in various areas. Each area has various risks - earthquake, volcano, tsunami, hurricane, tornado, hot as fuck winters, cold as fuck summers, and on and on. We manage our risks as best we can. But for each area there is a BENEFIT to people living there as well.
Coastal cities are necessary. We need ports. We need fishermen. We need all sorts of things that only coastal cities can provide, just like we need all sorts of things that regularly-flooded farmland can provide and things that can only be found on volcanic islands.
Your "fuck everyone that ever lived anywhere there was risk" idea is just fucking stupid and you know it.
Considered, continual use has led me to the belief that Republicans, or at least the current crew who run their party apparatus and the nutwing talk radio shows, are full of Pure, Weapons-Grade Bolognium.
Slashdot Mirror
#1 - Federal loan guarantees do play a part.
#2 - Showing that your college is "exclusive" by charging far more than community or state colleges plays a role, too.
#3 - Exploiting the parental desire to pay more for "exclusive" colleges (especially in the US South on the part of racist white parents wanting to get their kids out of the "colleges where those niggers go").
#4 - Private universities generally charge ALL students what would often be an "out of state" rate: going out-of-state to a State College will run you on average $18k/year while private universities charge, in-state or out-of-state, an average of $25k.
Now, take a look at that figure.
Take 20% off of the $25k - to account for state funding - and what do you have? $20k. Subtract another 10% to account for the lower pay of employees in state institutions as opposed to private and - guess what - now you see where the $18k out-of-state figure fits.
The math works. The reason tuition charged to students skyrocketed is because of cuts in state funding to state institutions that had to be made up in tuition hikes.
Funny, you "anonymous coward", I know people at the OWS protests. They've told my NO SUCH THING. I've told them my perspective, just as I stated before - 90% agree with me, the other 10% disagree only on the level of regulation needed.
So in essence, you're full of shit and trying to beat up on a strawman rather than talking to them about their beliefs. That would make you typical of the right-wing groups who seem to believe lassez-faire anarchism is the way to go.
Very true.
Of course, there's also the theory (before he was finally killed, and in conspiracy theory circles still going on since nobody saw the body really prior to the abrupt "burial at sea") that Osama bin Laden had been killed years earlier and that the various radio broadcasts - note that after a certain date there were no more videos, just audio - were the work either of canny computer splicing or a simple voice-actor double.
Which reminds me... seen Elvis lately? Word is he's lost 100 lbs and was at Disney last week ;)
This.
Additionally, start looking at how colleges are funded. 15 years ago, a "State College" meant that the institution was more than 50% funded by the state (e.g. tax and tariff and fee revenues). The cost was spread out, and the tuition costs were much lower.
Tuition costs have "risen" basically on par with how state funding has fallen. Today, a "state college" gets between 15 and 20% "state funding" and the rest comes out of tuition. In other words, much more of the cost has been placed on the backs of the students, with the EXPECTATION that these students will have "federally guaranteed student loans" so that either the student winds up a slave to student debt, or if they default or die, the federal government picks up the tab.
Welcome to the "conservative funding" shell game...
The program was scaled back drastically after it came out that most of the companies weren't providing any real training at all and were just using these people as free labor. Shocking, huh?
Unfettered, unregulated capitalism at work.
This is not to say that total socialism is the solution. The solution is somewhere midway - a tightly regulated capitalism that prevents abuses and provides a safety net for those who are ruined or harmed by the uncaring, unthinking actions of others while still providing rewards for innovators and hard workers.
Version 5 will be named Cookie Crisp then?
They also have "development names."
And just like Windows, Google lies about the feature set and promised stuff that was never delivered. Like the source code.
Remember, "don't be evil" was replaced with "fuck 'em we have 'em hooked" long ago.
Varying population density of organisms over a roughly 3 billion year period since the evolution of photosynthesis doesn't do it for you?
The terms you're looking for are:
Slander
Libel
Defamation
Now, you may be liable for some form of damages/action in a civil lawsuit thereby...
Getting back to the root of the issue - Canada doesn't have proper free speech protections (as the abuses by their so-called "human rights commission" indicate). That's what makes such a seemingly minor court case seem so important - the protection of unpopular speech from repressive government action or repressive action by determined individuals does not exist in Canada. Even the ability to say "See, these guys over in (country X with proper freedom of speech protection) say the following" is curtailed, sadly.
Oddly enough, the Earth seems to have no problem dealing with recycling waste. All it needs is a goodly variety of fish, insects, bivalves, and other organisms (both micro and macro) to handle the responsibility.
The problem with Biodome experiments, and any living environment we construct artificially, is that we necessarily screw up and fail to include enough organisms to occupy all niches in the amount needed. The molds that popped up in MIR and the ISS happened because that was the precise sort of environment in which those molds happened to thrive, while other organisms that normally would keep them in balance by competing for resources weren't brought up.
tl;dr version - Fish peed in your drinking water. Get over it and bring along a fucking aquarium rather than trying to do everything with "space age technology." Resources would be better spent on developing and refining either artificial gravity or controlled spin gravity substitutes.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/07/the-motorola-rokr-e1-apple-itunes-phone/
Yes. Yes it is. It's a motorola phone with an embedded iPod.
Apple developed a device the revolutionized the tablet market overnight.
No. Apple made a pretty fucking stupid device that was essentially a phoneless smartphone for people with hands the size of Andre the Giant or Peter Mayhew's.
Nothing more, nothing less.
No, he has a point.
Hockey Puck Mouse.
Apple "Cube."
Newton.
Apple Pippin.
Mac TV
Mac "Portable"
20th anniversary Mac
AppleWorks
QuickTake
eWorld
ROKR
Need I go on? Apple fanboys STILL try to defend these nightmare jokes of product.
For more: Perhaps this will help you along.
Meh.
If Apple really wants, they'll just order so many fucking iphones and iPads from the screen providers in Taiwan and Korea that Samsung will never see another of their phones or Galaxy tablets made for a couple years. Either Samsung will cave, or they'll die.
Don't think it's for real? Look at the delays on the last generation of Android tablets - square on the manufacturers who kept delaying screen runs in order to keep Apple orders going instead.
You're really insanely obsessed with the notion that being even slightly responsible is "going Pol Pot", aren't you?
I recycle cans and bottles. Doesn't make me a fucking mass murdering dictator. I leave that kind of behavior to Republican "I have the right to do whatever I want no matter who it hurts" assholes like yourself.
Reagan could be called a fiscal conservative.
Of course, that's because he was willing to RAISE taxes multiple times during his administration to prevent deficit spending (mention this to conservatives, provide evidence, and they'll call you a heretic these days).
The cult of Reagan has no idea who Reagan actually was, sadly. And thus, just as the Democrat Party famously left Reagan, the Republican Party has now left most of the US.
For the love of all that is sensible, you are maddeningly stupid.
So what; mankind's been around longer than 6th Century BC.
And at one time some of them believed that the world was on the back of a giant fucking turtle. Today, the round earth is "common sense." Science occasionally advances common sense, who knew?
Yes, I know that, I am not a moron. Nonetheless, until the experiments had been done, the notion that over short distances heavier objects would fall faster than light ones was widespread.
An apple will, in fact, fall faster than a leaf from the height of a tree (which is a pretty fucking short distance). See previous.
And on and on... there is a difference between common sense and religious asshattery. Stop ascribing the results of the latter to the former.
What do you expect when you have an entire political party that absolutely hates education in all forms today?
Far better in solving the problem is Instant Runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting). It ably allows people to vote for their party of primary preference, while still allowing secondary preference to be heard and impact the election (for example, the pro-isolationist wing of the Libertarian Party could happily vote Libertarian first, Republican second while the pro-dope-smoking wing of the Libertarian Party could happily vote Libertarian first, Democrat second).
Common sense is what told people the world is flat
Uhm no, what told people the world was flat was a limited perceptive distance beyond which "nobody had ever gone." The Greeks had posited the idea of a round earth as early as the 6th century BC, worked out through observations of polar star movement and altitude differences.
heavy objects fall faster than light objects
Actually, in the resistance of air, "light" objects of sufficient area have a much lower terminal velocity than heavier objects. Thus they do, in fact, fall faster. The idea that gravity is acting on them differently is incorrect, but that's all.
time is absolute and particles either go one way or another
For purposes of daily use, treating them as such simplifies the math while remaining useful. In detailed physics, no, but don't underestimate the idea of the useful approximation.
Common sense is what people use to demonstrate that fish can't turn into monkeys, or that you can't evolve an eye.
Oh for the love of... no, that's not "common sense", that is religious fuckwittery. There is a big difference.
It tells you that if loads of people get better when using homeopathic "remedies", there must be something in it.
No... again, that's not "common sense." That's a permutation of Argumentation By Authority.
Common sense is appealed to by those who can't produce any controlled trial basis for their suggested "improvements" to healthcare/whatever but want them implemented anyway, regardless of cost.Common sense and science are not good friends. And if you still don't believe me, go Google for "agw common sense" and see where it gets you.
Common sense tells ME that if it is valid, it can be scientifically tested. Common sense tells me also that people like you - who ascribe to "common sense" things that are demonstrably not - are buffoons.
Just what percentage of the people living in New Orleans are involved in in the port, gas terminal or fishing? Be generous and count the shopkeepers, schoolteachers, policemen, plumbers, etc and such required to supply the needs of the dockworkers and fishermen and their families. New Orleans should be at most 20% of its current population.
Cities grow. This is the nature of cities. Shops grow. There's a whole gambling industry there (bet you forgot that) - call it entertainment and tourism both. The rest of the places you mention are tied into a local economy. Nothing pops up "just to pop up", nothing happens in a vacuum. The population of a city grows because needs of the people there are met by increases in both business and population.
And as well you know, the French established the city where they did because (A) it had a semi-protected harbor and (B) the floodwash delta was very fertile farmland. Conducive to - dare I say it - growing a relatively large city for the time period.
Tell me again why we are growing cities there instead of pricing things such that most new growth happens a few miles inland where it doesn't flood every couple of years?
Flood plains are land "nobody wants." Therefore people who want to build Really Fucking Cheaply (and avoid property taxation!) will build there. If you want to re-jigger the system and change the rules for how it's going to work, and try to make it pricier to live there, go ahead. But you're going to have to accept that this is going to require the intervention of what you right-wing kooks call "big government" to make happen, and that it's going to come at the cost of preventing farmers from having the access they have grown to expect in terms of economic interaction otherwise.
No. The cult of "I saw outlying anecdote #32 therefore the whole damn system is fucked up" need to all be rounded up and shot.
DATA are what is necessary for making an actual, informed decision on policy matters. "One person had a bad experience therefore we need to rework the whole system" - if 99,999 other people got the RIGHT result, the anecdote is a fucking outlier and of no value in making an informed decision.
Ronald Reagan: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me."
Of course, old Ronnie lowered taxes initially, followed by RAISING taxes multiple times later in his administration to... balance the budget. Try telling that to these foaming-mouthed Tea Partiers today, they'll have an aneurism.
In much the same way I can say of myself today: "I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me."
And if more people understood there wouldn't be a problem.
Again, for the love of sanity: we NEED people to live in various areas. Each area has various risks - earthquake, volcano, tsunami, hurricane, tornado, hot as fuck winters, cold as fuck summers, and on and on. We manage our risks as best we can. But for each area there is a BENEFIT to people living there as well.
Coastal cities are necessary. We need ports. We need fishermen. We need all sorts of things that only coastal cities can provide, just like we need all sorts of things that regularly-flooded farmland can provide and things that can only be found on volcanic islands.
Your "fuck everyone that ever lived anywhere there was risk" idea is just fucking stupid and you know it.
Baloney Detection Kit.
Considered, continual use has led me to the belief that Republicans, or at least the current crew who run their party apparatus and the nutwing talk radio shows, are full of Pure, Weapons-Grade Bolognium.