Evidence suggests they can do exactly that. I don't know of any accredited school anywhere that is not eligible to participate in student loans.
Why would a school deliberately try to lose either accreditation or eligibility for student loans? Just because they aren't accidentally or deliberately running into these limits, doesn't mean that the limits don't exist. For example, I doubt a program could just double their tuition costs overnight and still expect to be covered by the various loan programs.
I got a doctorate in math for around $-150k. Yes, that's a negative sign. And it would have been awesome, but for the fact that I spent ten years to do that.
In the "STE" portion of STEM fields, if you are any good, there's no reason to take on debt at all for a post-graduate education.
However for high level radioactive waste you need something that will last for tens to hundreds of thousands of years.
It doesn't need to be perfectly leak-proof. Or last that long. I wonder why there's all this drama over nuclear waste and yet not over normal trash, which contains a lot of stuff with near-infinite half-life like lead or mercury, for example.
You could say this is quibbling, but you can't "keep contained" that which has been wildly uncontained for 3 years.
Except that there isn't anything at Fukushima which is wildly uncontained.
and specify what is to be done about the vast contamination which has alrteady escaped those boundaries, at least some of it to the 4 corners of the earth's oceans
Nothing is good for a start. Can't you discuss this without veering into irresponsible hyperbole?
And yet, costs have not re-normalized to meet that new reality. So either that more than doubling is a weak response at best or somehow the re-balancing of supply and demand hasn't been allowed to bring prices back down ass theory would predict.
I agree with you here. As others have noted, the accreditation system is a big obstacle to supply meeting demand. I'd wager that most of this growth is in established campuses which don't have to try very hard to keep accreditation.
But it's also in the nature of the various loan programs. I doubt schools could arbitrarily increase their costs from year to year without losing access to the loan programs.
So why isn't supply responding to the glut of money?
It is. For example, total enrollment in college went from 8.6 million students in 1970 to 19.1 million in 2010. Also, female enrollment rates have gone up a lot. So supply more than doubled over that time period.
It doesn't matter how many fucked up nuclear accidents there were in the past
There were three similar accidents (at least partial core melt down) to Fukushima in the past 60 years in civilian nuclear power plants. None of those accidents were due to an overwhelming environmental factor damaging the reactors in question. Given the number of reactors out there, that's quite a small number. And I think it does matter how many such accidents there were.
they seem to think today's humans are magically better and won't make any more mistakes with nuclear power.
They don't need to be. Fukushima is not so costly that we need to avoid it at all costs. Further, there's this thing in engineering called "learning from experience".
What some people can't seem to wrap their head around is that the Reactor itself was rated to 600Gal and was only ever exposed to 150Gal on the day, for which it SCRAMed correctly and shut itself down.
And if the earthquake didn't happen there wouldn't have been that acceleration or the inundation by tsunami.
I find it interesting that some people, like our friend above, like to mask the capabilities of the Reactor design and make sweeping statemnents such as "magnitude 9 earthquakes can cause nuclear accidents" when in fact, the official investigation revealed that this accident was "wholey man-mad" due to a series of management failures.
I think one of the things I find most offensive about the Fukushima accident are all the armchair engineers who, although exercising no real experience, responsibilities, or perceivable judgment in engineering themselves, have no trouble equating hindsight with foresight. It's easy to claim that there were "management failures". You just type it in. A work of a few seconds and you can go on to picking your nose or whatever it is you do when you aren't berating nuclear power plant operators.
I'll note here there was no real attempt on your part to consider the accident. From the beginning, you've been squawking about management failures without giving any thought to what was going on. For example:
This had nothing to do with the reactor technology and everything to do with implementing the proper safeguards, planning and engineering for such a catastrophe. They should have been planning for a 15 earthquake and a tsunami twice the size of this one. They didn't and this is the result.
Why build for a 30+ meter tsunami? If that never happens aside from the occasional near hit by a fair-sized asteroid every few million years, then what is the point of that bit of overengineering aside from just making the whole project a lot more expensive? Keep in mind that the current protection was more than adequate and if they hadn't flooded out all their backup generators, this whole thing would have been a non-story. Now we know that's a problem we can look for it in existing and planned nuclear plants.
But the ignorance of the above quote shines through on the claim that they should have designed for a magnitude 15 earthquake. That ends up being a billion times more energy than the magnitude 9 earthquake that actually happened. There's no known mechanism by which the crust can store that much energy in one place and release it. There may not be enough such energy tied up in all of the Earth's crust to do that.
So it's real easy to play armchair engineer on the internet. On the other hand, it takes extraordinary effort on the part of the nuclear plant operators and their regulators to anticipate all these scenarios despite having a very limited history of reactor failures. Nor do they or their needy customers have unlimited sums of money with which to entertain every possible scenario that the armchair engineer can dump on the internet or implement ridiculous factors of safety just because it makes the armchair engineer feel smug.
Similarly, I understand that nuclear reactors, especially the older ones, are rather complex. Yet no one has thought to consider that maybe the generator placement slipped through the cracks just because of how complex the Fukushima plant was? No it had to be criminal negligence!
Finally, engineering doesn't magically get it right the first time. They learn by doing. So if say, you want a nuclear power plant operator who can meet your exacting standards for not fucking up, then you need to endure a few generations of operators who don't quite get there. If we were to just get rid of the plants and the operators, then we would never acquire the experience.
The quake at Fukushima had 6 perhaps with good will 6.5 on the richter scale.
A point-blank earthquake of that magnitude would be a lot of shaking and would explain the problems with industrial controllers without the need to invoke stuxnet.
Because one disaster is made better by using the few people that demonstrated that they are some of the worst options for operating a nuclear power plant.
That didn't happen at Fukushima. I find it interesting how people can't wrap their heads around the idea that magnitude 9 earthquakes can cause nuclear accidents.
Notice that they don't have evidence for the assertion made in the link. For example, actually finding stuxnet on a Fukushima controller or PC would have been evidence. A controller that happens to be acting irregularly after a magnitude nine earthquake? There could be other reasonable causes, such as damage from a magnitude 9 earthquake.
The Fukushima Event is yet another glaring message for Humanity that until real adults show up, we need to stop messing around with nuclear power.
Or we could just keep people who don't have a clue what a "real adult" is out of the decision loop.
I mean, what sort of industry can withstand the inclusion of a randomly occurring 4-decade cleanup program?
Or one could implement sensible land use instead. Nuclear plants and other heavy industry doesn't require pristine environments, for example. So instead of spending tens of billions and decades to make Fukushima look pretty, they could spend a lot less in time and money and turn the area into a useful industrial park. And the plus is that if down the road, someone spills more chemicals or releases more radioactive material, then it's in an area that is already compromised and for which one doesn't need to do white glove-level clean up.
The first world came out fine thanks to advantages it had when it was developing, advantages that the third world does not have today.
And we see that your "advantages" are:
First, there was no first world before the first world. This meant there was little pressure from above, because there was no "above". There were less/no AGW alarmists and tree huggers getting in the way of industrious businesses from improving the economy necessary to pull a society into the first world.
Normally, people would consider a working example as an advantage.
Second, pollution s not seen as a huge global problem. Your country pollutes? That's your problem. The notion that we're in a global village and your pollution will affect the whole world later was yet to be popularized (one reason being there were less AGW alarmists pushing the narrative)
Ok, where's the disadvantage here? I thought at first you were speaking of pollution holding back the third world. Or that somehow there was a global aspect to pollution which was relevant to your claim.
But that's not what you actually wrote. With this and the previous paragraph, you seem to saying that some people thinking pollution is a big deal and some people don't. While that is what I'd consider a fact, it is a fact which is completely irrelevant.
Third, the world economy was less globalized. Globalization increased the effects of international pressure, but not from AGW alarmists. The pressure comes from owners and shareholders, and they pressure third world factories to keep working and polluting to keep up production.
Such as the pressure to control corruption, upgrade one's society to first world levels, and improve the well-being of one's citizens? A pressure which accompanies a surge of wealth with which to accommodate the pressure? Again, where is the argument here?
And that pressure existed in the first world as well, yet things turned out well anyway.
Furthermore, globalization creates a moral hazard covering up the harms of pollution. After all, Pollution Respects Distance, so the owner of the factory doesn't see the damage he's doing, nor would other first worlders enjoying the products made by that factory. The third world people who are suffering are too far away to be able to seek compensation.
Reading stuff like this, I get the impression that some people out there think it's a law of physics that belching smokestacks must exist somewhere in the universe in order for us to have a nice civilization. It's just not true.
There will always be some degree of pollution and other externalities just because we're human. The developed world has demonstrated that this can be controlled. The rest of world in turn is following that same path.
What exactly is supposed to be the problem here? The only way "we" get the third world to clean up is by making them part of the first world. The first world went through its own polluting stage and it came out fine.
I notice that you don't answer your own question. But if we continue that trend we get 11 billion in 2100 - most of it in Africa and Asia. It's still growing, but at a far slower rate. We might even hit no population growth by then, depending on what happens in places like Africa. The population doubled twice in the 20th century. It won't come close to that level of growth in the next century.
And the US and the rest of the developed world won't be contributing to that population growth. So unless the US imports a vast number of people, they won't have the population for those megacities of the Judge Dredd stories (for which US based megacities sometimes go as high as 800 million people according to Wikipedia).
But apparently it's thought to be a better idea to destroy the entire stock of precious hydrocarbons that took Nature a hundred million years to lay down in the next century by burning them instead.
Seriously, what's the better use of those hydrocarbons? I get the feeling people are treating it like a bank. But a bank takes savings deposits and loans them to someone else. So that money never just sits around. OTOH, if you don't pull oil out of the ground and do something with it, then you're doing nothing with it. Hydrocarbons sitting in the ground aren't at all precious.
So what are we going to be doing with those hydrocarbons in the future that is so precious?
Just because occupations have popped up to replace these lost jobs in the past doesn't mean that they will in the future.
But it is firm evidence that they probably will. It's worth noting that the places with current long term employment problems have some sort of massive dysfunction in their societies. Either they're deeply corrupt or they systematically punish the act of employment.
Nothing in the future is guaranteed, but it seems foolish to discount how labor has been massively reallocated repeatedly over the past few centuries.
And yet all these dirty societies are progressing towards the developed world societies. Developed world societies passed through a heavy pollution phase too and got over it.
Exactly how fast do you think a cargo ship moves? There would plenty of time for the owners to notice the loss of control and have a naval warship intercept it.
And have that naval warship attacked by several dozen remote controlled cargo ships. Assuming the naval warship isn't itself remotely hijacked to contribute to the theft in progress.
Alternately, just hijack the remote control of the ship, sail it to a friendly port and scrap the ship and cargo for cents on the dollar. A system like this becomes a huge, high value target for anyone who can bribe an employee in the control system. Someone might be able to obtain tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in a short while by stealing dozens or hundreds of such ships at once.
Putting in a centralized system creates a vulnerability to a single attack or bug.
There's a third possibility. Namely, that the rest of the world embraces the careful environmental stewardship that is characteristic of current developed world societies. It is remarkable how unrealistic the Judge Dredd thing has turned out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence suggests they can do exactly that. I don't know of any accredited school anywhere that is not eligible to participate in student loans.
Why would a school deliberately try to lose either accreditation or eligibility for student loans? Just because they aren't accidentally or deliberately running into these limits, doesn't mean that the limits don't exist. For example, I doubt a program could just double their tuition costs overnight and still expect to be covered by the various loan programs.
or getting a doctorate in most any field
I got a doctorate in math for around $-150k. Yes, that's a negative sign. And it would have been awesome, but for the fact that I spent ten years to do that.
In the "STE" portion of STEM fields, if you are any good, there's no reason to take on debt at all for a post-graduate education.
However for high level radioactive waste you need something that will last for tens to hundreds of thousands of years.
It doesn't need to be perfectly leak-proof. Or last that long. I wonder why there's all this drama over nuclear waste and yet not over normal trash, which contains a lot of stuff with near-infinite half-life like lead or mercury, for example.
Once most of it can be 3d printed it will drop even faster.
Extrusion will probably stay a lot cheaper than 3d printing for making flat strips like this.
You could say this is quibbling, but you can't "keep contained" that which has been wildly uncontained for 3 years.
Except that there isn't anything at Fukushima which is wildly uncontained.
and specify what is to be done about the vast contamination which has alrteady escaped those boundaries, at least some of it to the 4 corners of the earth's oceans
Nothing is good for a start. Can't you discuss this without veering into irresponsible hyperbole?
And yet, costs have not re-normalized to meet that new reality. So either that more than doubling is a weak response at best or somehow the re-balancing of supply and demand hasn't been allowed to bring prices back down ass theory would predict.
I agree with you here. As others have noted, the accreditation system is a big obstacle to supply meeting demand. I'd wager that most of this growth is in established campuses which don't have to try very hard to keep accreditation.
But it's also in the nature of the various loan programs. I doubt schools could arbitrarily increase their costs from year to year without losing access to the loan programs.
So why isn't supply responding to the glut of money?
It is. For example, total enrollment in college went from 8.6 million students in 1970 to 19.1 million in 2010. Also, female enrollment rates have gone up a lot. So supply more than doubled over that time period.
It doesn't matter how many fucked up nuclear accidents there were in the past
There were three similar accidents (at least partial core melt down) to Fukushima in the past 60 years in civilian nuclear power plants. None of those accidents were due to an overwhelming environmental factor damaging the reactors in question. Given the number of reactors out there, that's quite a small number. And I think it does matter how many such accidents there were.
they seem to think today's humans are magically better and won't make any more mistakes with nuclear power.
They don't need to be. Fukushima is not so costly that we need to avoid it at all costs. Further, there's this thing in engineering called "learning from experience".
Aren't they put on a payment schedule that covers a 10 to 15 year period, meaning that you should have them paid off in your 30s?
Unless you can't meet payments.
What some people can't seem to wrap their head around is that the Reactor itself was rated to 600Gal and was only ever exposed to 150Gal on the day, for which it SCRAMed correctly and shut itself down.
And if the earthquake didn't happen there wouldn't have been that acceleration or the inundation by tsunami.
I find it interesting that some people, like our friend above, like to mask the capabilities of the Reactor design and make sweeping statemnents such as "magnitude 9 earthquakes can cause nuclear accidents" when in fact, the official investigation revealed that this accident was "wholey man-mad" due to a series of management failures.
I think one of the things I find most offensive about the Fukushima accident are all the armchair engineers who, although exercising no real experience, responsibilities, or perceivable judgment in engineering themselves, have no trouble equating hindsight with foresight. It's easy to claim that there were "management failures". You just type it in. A work of a few seconds and you can go on to picking your nose or whatever it is you do when you aren't berating nuclear power plant operators.
I'll note here there was no real attempt on your part to consider the accident. From the beginning, you've been squawking about management failures without giving any thought to what was going on. For example:
This had nothing to do with the reactor technology and everything to do with implementing the proper safeguards, planning and engineering for such a catastrophe. They should have been planning for a 15 earthquake and a tsunami twice the size of this one. They didn't and this is the result.
Why build for a 30+ meter tsunami? If that never happens aside from the occasional near hit by a fair-sized asteroid every few million years, then what is the point of that bit of overengineering aside from just making the whole project a lot more expensive? Keep in mind that the current protection was more than adequate and if they hadn't flooded out all their backup generators, this whole thing would have been a non-story. Now we know that's a problem we can look for it in existing and planned nuclear plants.
But the ignorance of the above quote shines through on the claim that they should have designed for a magnitude 15 earthquake. That ends up being a billion times more energy than the magnitude 9 earthquake that actually happened. There's no known mechanism by which the crust can store that much energy in one place and release it. There may not be enough such energy tied up in all of the Earth's crust to do that.
So it's real easy to play armchair engineer on the internet. On the other hand, it takes extraordinary effort on the part of the nuclear plant operators and their regulators to anticipate all these scenarios despite having a very limited history of reactor failures. Nor do they or their needy customers have unlimited sums of money with which to entertain every possible scenario that the armchair engineer can dump on the internet or implement ridiculous factors of safety just because it makes the armchair engineer feel smug.
Similarly, I understand that nuclear reactors, especially the older ones, are rather complex. Yet no one has thought to consider that maybe the generator placement slipped through the cracks just because of how complex the Fukushima plant was? No it had to be criminal negligence!
Finally, engineering doesn't magically get it right the first time. They learn by doing. So if say, you want a nuclear power plant operator who can meet your exacting standards for not fucking up, then you need to endure a few generations of operators who don't quite get there. If we were to just get rid of the plants and the operators, then we would never acquire the experience.
The quake at Fukushima had 6 perhaps with good will 6.5 on the richter scale.
A point-blank earthquake of that magnitude would be a lot of shaking and would explain the problems with industrial controllers without the need to invoke stuxnet.
Because one disaster is made better by using the few people that demonstrated that they are some of the worst options for operating a nuclear power plant.
That didn't happen at Fukushima. I find it interesting how people can't wrap their heads around the idea that magnitude 9 earthquakes can cause nuclear accidents.
Notice that they don't have evidence for the assertion made in the link. For example, actually finding stuxnet on a Fukushima controller or PC would have been evidence. A controller that happens to be acting irregularly after a magnitude nine earthquake? There could be other reasonable causes, such as damage from a magnitude 9 earthquake.
The Fukushima Event is yet another glaring message for Humanity that until real adults show up, we need to stop messing around with nuclear power.
Or we could just keep people who don't have a clue what a "real adult" is out of the decision loop.
I mean, what sort of industry can withstand the inclusion of a randomly occurring 4-decade cleanup program?
Or one could implement sensible land use instead. Nuclear plants and other heavy industry doesn't require pristine environments, for example. So instead of spending tens of billions and decades to make Fukushima look pretty, they could spend a lot less in time and money and turn the area into a useful industrial park. And the plus is that if down the road, someone spills more chemicals or releases more radioactive material, then it's in an area that is already compromised and for which one doesn't need to do white glove-level clean up.
The first world came out fine thanks to advantages it had when it was developing, advantages that the third world does not have today.
And we see that your "advantages" are:
First, there was no first world before the first world. This meant there was little pressure from above, because there was no "above". There were less/no AGW alarmists and tree huggers getting in the way of industrious businesses from improving the economy necessary to pull a society into the first world.
Normally, people would consider a working example as an advantage.
Second, pollution s not seen as a huge global problem. Your country pollutes? That's your problem. The notion that we're in a global village and your pollution will affect the whole world later was yet to be popularized (one reason being there were less AGW alarmists pushing the narrative)
Ok, where's the disadvantage here? I thought at first you were speaking of pollution holding back the third world. Or that somehow there was a global aspect to pollution which was relevant to your claim.
But that's not what you actually wrote. With this and the previous paragraph, you seem to saying that some people thinking pollution is a big deal and some people don't. While that is what I'd consider a fact, it is a fact which is completely irrelevant.
Third, the world economy was less globalized. Globalization increased the effects of international pressure, but not from AGW alarmists. The pressure comes from owners and shareholders, and they pressure third world factories to keep working and polluting to keep up production.
Such as the pressure to control corruption, upgrade one's society to first world levels, and improve the well-being of one's citizens? A pressure which accompanies a surge of wealth with which to accommodate the pressure? Again, where is the argument here?
And that pressure existed in the first world as well, yet things turned out well anyway.
Furthermore, globalization creates a moral hazard covering up the harms of pollution. After all, Pollution Respects Distance, so the owner of the factory doesn't see the damage he's doing, nor would other first worlders enjoying the products made by that factory. The third world people who are suffering are too far away to be able to seek compensation.
Reading stuff like this, I get the impression that some people out there think it's a law of physics that belching smokestacks must exist somewhere in the universe in order for us to have a nice civilization. It's just not true.
There will always be some degree of pollution and other externalities just because we're human. The developed world has demonstrated that this can be controlled. The rest of world in turn is following that same path.
No, they said it was rude (lower case) and agreed with the post. You're the one who appears to be hyperventilating with the CAPS LOCK key.
So what sort of lie is mischaracterizing someone's words twice? And don't you have anything better to do than bite ankles on Slashdot?
Yes, it is a victory since someone had to pay money.
What exactly is supposed to be the problem here? The only way "we" get the third world to clean up is by making them part of the first world. The first world went through its own polluting stage and it came out fine.
What the hell would you call "rapidly expanding"?
I notice that you don't answer your own question. But if we continue that trend we get 11 billion in 2100 - most of it in Africa and Asia. It's still growing, but at a far slower rate. We might even hit no population growth by then, depending on what happens in places like Africa. The population doubled twice in the 20th century. It won't come close to that level of growth in the next century.
And the US and the rest of the developed world won't be contributing to that population growth. So unless the US imports a vast number of people, they won't have the population for those megacities of the Judge Dredd stories (for which US based megacities sometimes go as high as 800 million people according to Wikipedia).
But apparently it's thought to be a better idea to destroy the entire stock of precious hydrocarbons that took Nature a hundred million years to lay down in the next century by burning them instead.
Seriously, what's the better use of those hydrocarbons? I get the feeling people are treating it like a bank. But a bank takes savings deposits and loans them to someone else. So that money never just sits around. OTOH, if you don't pull oil out of the ground and do something with it, then you're doing nothing with it. Hydrocarbons sitting in the ground aren't at all precious.
So what are we going to be doing with those hydrocarbons in the future that is so precious?
Just because occupations have popped up to replace these lost jobs in the past doesn't mean that they will in the future.
But it is firm evidence that they probably will. It's worth noting that the places with current long term employment problems have some sort of massive dysfunction in their societies. Either they're deeply corrupt or they systematically punish the act of employment.
Nothing in the future is guaranteed, but it seems foolish to discount how labor has been massively reallocated repeatedly over the past few centuries.
And yet all these dirty societies are progressing towards the developed world societies. Developed world societies passed through a heavy pollution phase too and got over it.
Exactly how fast do you think a cargo ship moves? There would plenty of time for the owners to notice the loss of control and have a naval warship intercept it.
And have that naval warship attacked by several dozen remote controlled cargo ships. Assuming the naval warship isn't itself remotely hijacked to contribute to the theft in progress.
Alternately, just hijack the remote control of the ship, sail it to a friendly port and scrap the ship and cargo for cents on the dollar. A system like this becomes a huge, high value target for anyone who can bribe an employee in the control system. Someone might be able to obtain tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in a short while by stealing dozens or hundreds of such ships at once.
Putting in a centralized system creates a vulnerability to a single attack or bug.
There's a third possibility. Namely, that the rest of the world embraces the careful environmental stewardship that is characteristic of current developed world societies. It is remarkable how unrealistic the Judge Dredd thing has turned out to be.