& ransomware. That's where most of it's non-trivial value comes from. It's difficult to trace (impossible if you are careful not to link your name to your wallet) hence the popularity. Take away that anonymity and the value crashes.
Also if censorship could solve the problem we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's very difficult to censor people when you don't know who they are, where they're coming from, etc. They can just throw bots at you until you break. And that's before we talk about plain 'ole hackers breaking into systems and doing nefarious things.
Finally I think you're getting at viruses at the end of your post (Microsoft makes OS software, not networking hardware, so I can't imagine you mean anything else). Most viruses are people double clicking on things carelessly.
Again, the problems we're trying to solve are complex. They'll require complex solutions. Making your own internet with ( Blackjack and Hookers ) isn't the answer. It's too simplistic.
the two are fundamentally incompatible. Privacy only matters when powerful organizations (basically government & mega corps) are abusing it. Accountability requires consequences that are enforced. Meaning no anonymity since if you're anonymous punishment can't be enforced.
Sorry O'Reilly, but there are no simple answers to the complex problems caused by global telecom network open to all commers. It's either going to be a hodge podge of solutions tailored to solve specific problems, a broken chaotic mess or locked down by the ruling class. I'm for the first option.
they come from private for profit schools that rose up as blue collar work disappeared due to outsourcing and people who couldn't hack college found themselves without opportunities and desperately trying to get ahead. They did indeed take advantage of cheap, guaranteed government loans. The public universities are non-profit. They have no revenues per se.
You know all this. You know exactly what the problem is, which is that we abandoned the working class so the rich could have tax cuts. Are you one of their lackeys or do you just enjoy trolling? You've got the talking points down too well to just be some random yahoo. Either way you should be ashamed of yourself. You and your ilk bring down all of civilization out of fear, anger and hatred. Does it feel good? Is it worth it?
there's not enough funding to run a big enough program for all the qualified applicants. They could raise tuition but that wouldn't really help. College is already at the limits of affordability even accounting for the loans. Raising prices would just mean fewer students could afford to enter. So all that does is change the system from one where only the top kids get to finish school (merit based) to one where only the well to do kids get to finish.
Basically, this isn't a problem we can solve with supply/demand economics. The only way for any of this to work is for the government to step in and fund public Universities, which is what they did for about 40 years Post WWII until Regan, Clinton & the Bushes (and the State legislatures) started slashing funding
and I'm tired of hearing folks blather on about it in those terms. This is how it works:
Businesses, schools and other organizations are not allowed to discriminate on the bases of race or gender. They must keep track of the race and gender of applicants and the reasons why they choose a given applicant. If the percentage of a given race or gender in their organization is less than the percentage in the local community they must surrender their records in order to show they are not making racially or gender motivated hiring or admitting decisions (which most have long since decided should not be legal, you can disagree if you want, but be aware that if you do you are a racist. I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact).
There are no quotas. You can hire 100% white males if you want. You just have to have paperwork that proves you did it because they were the most qualified applicants. You have not nor have you ever been passed over for a black woman (or any other combination of minority) because of Affirmative Action.
I don't bring this up because I'm some starry eyed SJW. I'm upset you're blaming your economic situation on Affirmative Action quotas instead of the real culprit: declining middle class job opportunities caused by lower pay and outsourcing; all of which was orchestrated by wealthy plutocrats to your detriment and mine. Affirmative Action is one of the many distractions they use to divide the working class against itself. We can't start solving our problems for real until we face up to that.
or being lied to. Not sure which. See here. Took me a few seconds on google to find that. The sad thing is you managed to get modded up.
Cutting student loan funding isn't to solution. All that does is force poor kids completely out of college. Like it was before we started funding higher education with tax dollars post WWII.
If you're just being lied to please educate yourself on google. If you're actively lying then, well, fuck off you right wing revisionist. Right back at you.
kids can only borrow so much money. If you raise the cost of class you don't get more students, you just switch from a system where the top students get to go to school (merit) to one where money decides who gets to go. You haven't actually solved the problem and you've debatably made it worse (some argue that money should decide everything in civilization).
unless their for profit. My kid's going to a public university. The only admin folks making good money are the dean the football coach and the basketball coach. Everybody else makes jack. The professors make low six figures, but they're also tops in their fields. Most are there so they can get money to do the kinds of basic research that corporations won't fund because while both interesting & beneficial it doesn't pay off for decades.
College is just really, really expensive. It always has been, but we funded it with tax dollars taken mostly from the upper class. We did that because post WWII folks felt they were owed a good life with an education. People seem to have lost sight of that. Or if they think they're owed something they think it's just them that's owed it and that everybody else should just pay for it themselves.
but she was recommended by the school, so I don't know what else to call it.
But who in their right mind takes an unpaid internship after graduation? That's not an internship, that's being taken advantage of by a weak job market. There's nothing worth studying there. It's a blight that needs to be stamped out. A way of having an employee without paying them, which at least in my country used to be very, very illegal.
now why is it I can't safely cross a street when I've got right of way? I got hit about 5 years ago carrying my bike across a street with the little blue guy telling me to cross. It was a cross walk seldom used by pedestrians since I had ridden out pretty far on my bike and was gonna go back the way I came. It didn't cross the woman who hit me's mind that somebody would ever cross there, so when the light turned red she just kept going...
the quality of the school she graduates from will determine her base salary, which will in turn determine how much she makes for pretty much the rest of her life. Raises are a percentage of your current pay and your next job will consider your current salary when bargaining.
It's amazing, and more than a little terrifying, how decisions you make as a dumb kid completely shape every aspect of your adult life...
it's not cheap to hire more teachers. You need more facilities, more resources. The kids can't pay enough to cover that cost. College is a _lot_ more expensive then folks believe. We've been hiding that cost with massive government subsidies. Those subsidies got pulled by Clinton & Bush Jr.
It's just like our roads. We've got the existing infrastructure that was paid for by the feds back in the day and it works, but it's not nearly enough and we're having real problems now because of it.
And you're right, it doesn't make sense. That's why it's a problem that's not being addressed let alone solved. It's hard to explain to people that a kid with a 3.8 GPA might be kicked out of school. It doesn't make any sense. You hear it and you don't believe it. So the problem exists but folks ignore it because they don't believe it's happening...
my kid got lucky and got a paid one, but she would have taken an unpaid one if she hadn't just to give her one more edge when it came time to select students.
What I'm saying is, kids aren't taking internships to make more money like they used to when I was a kid. They're taking them because college has become hyper competitive and if they don't have something besides a 4.0 they won't be allowed to proceed with their academic career. Basically, the study's implied conclusion (that kids make less money if they do an unpaid internship) is pointless. Kids aren't doing internships for more money after graduation. They're doing it out of desperation to get into their last 2 years of school. And yeah, that's kinda screwed up right there.
Not sure about the UK, but in the States you use unpaid internships to help get into your 300 level courses. After 30 years of budget cuts schools don't have enough space for all the applicants in most majors (especially medical, and not just full medical doctor, think Nursing, pharmacist, physical therapist, etc, etc). Even a perfect GPA won't guarantee you a spot anymore. So you volunteer, do extracurricular stuff and finally internships. My kid got lucky and got what's more or less a paid one. But it's like winning the lottery what with the number of applicants.
I've been saying this on and off for years. We're all about to get a taste of all that efficiency folks have been clamoring about for decades. All that bureaucracy and waste is one of the only things that made it possible to pry even a bit of money out of the hands of the super rich. If you think the economy sucks now wait till it's running at peak efficiency.
to feed the private prisons and divide the working class against each other. He most likely believes crime is increasing, even though 30 seconds on google proves otherwise.
because conjecture and law don't go hand in hand. People have tried to sue gun manufactures for selling a dangerous product and failed completely. Sure, gun manufactures have to sell you a gun that doesn't blow up in your hand, but that's about it.
And we can't address those issues because the people who pro-gun also tend to oppose addressing those issues. They don't want to have to pay for it. So they come to the poll to vote for their guns and stick around to vote against any measure that would solve things. For example, nobody cared about drugs until middle class (mostly white) folk started having problems. And all that got us was lip service. Meanwhile our AG is openly in favor of 'tough' drug laws, meaning longer sentences and bigger crackdown.
or _any_ Office suite? They're all boated with features. That's the point. They're crammed with features so you can make complex documents. Go use Abiword & gnumerics if you want something simple.
lobby. I hear how the right to keep and bear arms is to protect them from the government. If you just wanted a pistol to threaten a few punks with then gun control wouldn't be an issue. Hitler rounded up guns because the gap between a military and a populace wasn't anywhere near as wide in 1945 as it is now.
And no, the term is not dishonest. It's exactly what it says on the tin. You're a right wing troll or you're repeating talking points from one. My point, which you know full well, is that the working class should stop fighting among itself and switch to proven solutions to the problem of civilization.
Look. I get it. You don't like being told what to do. You didn't when you were a kid and you never grew out of it. But it's time to grow up. Stop dragging us down with your childishness. And If you really don't want to live in civilization go live in the Ozarks or Afghanistan or some crap. Leave. Go. Get out. We'll air drop you food from civilization when you start to starve to death.
Sorry, but what the devil are you on about? There are no laws anywhere regarding smart guns. Nor are there any plans to have laws regarding them (short of a few lawmakers trying to get the government to buy smart guns after they received rather generous donations from the makers of said smart guns).
You're seeing a conspiracy where there is none and immediately jumping to a worst possible conclusion. Nobody is planing on forcing you or anyone else to use smart guns. If they're going to take your guns (they're not) they'll just send somebody to round 'em up. On the plus side you reminded me of this today:).
and moved on to Democratic Socialism, which is working just fine everywhere it's been tried (I know, you're already furiously typing something about Valenzuela without realizing that before the oil boom they were a hopelessly poor country and after the oil boom they've gone back to one).
Smart Guns are likely to be the same. It's a difficult problem to solve that's just in it's infancy. See, the solution to a difficult problem isn't to throw your hands up and say "I give up!" at the first sign or even the second of trouble. For the record some of us _like_ the idea of gun our kids can't accidentally shoot. And not all of us are planing on gunning down the first punk kid that breaks into our house. The dumb kid can have my TV. It's not worth his life.
Interstate commerce. Universities operate across state lines you know. And if you want to be a literalist then if you're not in a militia I'll be taking your guns please. And not just any militia, a well regulated one to boot.
And why don't you go live in a cave. I mean that. Stop using my roads (built with federal money even if they're local), my telecom network built with that same federal money, the clean water regulated by the Federal government, taking medicine developed largely with grants, etc, etc, etc, etc.
You benefit from my kid's hard work. Massively. You're being mean spirited and selfish and should be called out on it. I'm tired of you fair weather conservatives all in favor of personal responsibility as long as it's not something you're personally using. Move to Somalia and go enjoy your libertarian paradise.
backing that woman because she opposed progressive policies that benefit the working class. And Hillary couldn't give two shits about your guns either. She just needs some issue, any issue, to make her seem like something other than a Republican. Well, an issue that isn't economic anyway. She's not gonna support Single Payer in my lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
right here.
& ransomware. That's where most of it's non-trivial value comes from. It's difficult to trace (impossible if you are careful not to link your name to your wallet) hence the popularity. Take away that anonymity and the value crashes.
Also if censorship could solve the problem we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's very difficult to censor people when you don't know who they are, where they're coming from, etc. They can just throw bots at you until you break. And that's before we talk about plain 'ole hackers breaking into systems and doing nefarious things.
Finally I think you're getting at viruses at the end of your post (Microsoft makes OS software, not networking hardware, so I can't imagine you mean anything else). Most viruses are people double clicking on things carelessly.
Again, the problems we're trying to solve are complex. They'll require complex solutions. Making your own internet with ( Blackjack and Hookers ) isn't the answer. It's too simplistic.
the two are fundamentally incompatible. Privacy only matters when powerful organizations (basically government & mega corps) are abusing it. Accountability requires consequences that are enforced. Meaning no anonymity since if you're anonymous punishment can't be enforced.
Sorry O'Reilly, but there are no simple answers to the complex problems caused by global telecom network open to all commers. It's either going to be a hodge podge of solutions tailored to solve specific problems, a broken chaotic mess or locked down by the ruling class. I'm for the first option.
they come from private for profit schools that rose up as blue collar work disappeared due to outsourcing and people who couldn't hack college found themselves without opportunities and desperately trying to get ahead. They did indeed take advantage of cheap, guaranteed government loans. The public universities are non-profit. They have no revenues per se.
You know all this. You know exactly what the problem is, which is that we abandoned the working class so the rich could have tax cuts. Are you one of their lackeys or do you just enjoy trolling? You've got the talking points down too well to just be some random yahoo. Either way you should be ashamed of yourself. You and your ilk bring down all of civilization out of fear, anger and hatred. Does it feel good? Is it worth it?
there's not enough funding to run a big enough program for all the qualified applicants. They could raise tuition but that wouldn't really help. College is already at the limits of affordability even accounting for the loans. Raising prices would just mean fewer students could afford to enter. So all that does is change the system from one where only the top kids get to finish school (merit based) to one where only the well to do kids get to finish.
Basically, this isn't a problem we can solve with supply/demand economics. The only way for any of this to work is for the government to step in and fund public Universities, which is what they did for about 40 years Post WWII until Regan, Clinton & the Bushes (and the State legislatures) started slashing funding
and I'm tired of hearing folks blather on about it in those terms. This is how it works:
Businesses, schools and other organizations are not allowed to discriminate on the bases of race or gender. They must keep track of the race and gender of applicants and the reasons why they choose a given applicant. If the percentage of a given race or gender in their organization is less than the percentage in the local community they must surrender their records in order to show they are not making racially or gender motivated hiring or admitting decisions (which most have long since decided should not be legal, you can disagree if you want, but be aware that if you do you are a racist. I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact).
There are no quotas. You can hire 100% white males if you want. You just have to have paperwork that proves you did it because they were the most qualified applicants. You have not nor have you ever been passed over for a black woman (or any other combination of minority) because of Affirmative Action.
I don't bring this up because I'm some starry eyed SJW. I'm upset you're blaming your economic situation on Affirmative Action quotas instead of the real culprit: declining middle class job opportunities caused by lower pay and outsourcing; all of which was orchestrated by wealthy plutocrats to your detriment and mine. Affirmative Action is one of the many distractions they use to divide the working class against itself. We can't start solving our problems for real until we face up to that.
or being lied to. Not sure which. See here. Took me a few seconds on google to find that. The sad thing is you managed to get modded up.
Cutting student loan funding isn't to solution. All that does is force poor kids completely out of college. Like it was before we started funding higher education with tax dollars post WWII.
If you're just being lied to please educate yourself on google. If you're actively lying then, well, fuck off you right wing revisionist. Right back at you.
kids can only borrow so much money. If you raise the cost of class you don't get more students, you just switch from a system where the top students get to go to school (merit) to one where money decides who gets to go. You haven't actually solved the problem and you've debatably made it worse (some argue that money should decide everything in civilization).
unless their for profit. My kid's going to a public university. The only admin folks making good money are the dean the football coach and the basketball coach. Everybody else makes jack. The professors make low six figures, but they're also tops in their fields. Most are there so they can get money to do the kinds of basic research that corporations won't fund because while both interesting & beneficial it doesn't pay off for decades.
College is just really, really expensive. It always has been, but we funded it with tax dollars taken mostly from the upper class. We did that because post WWII folks felt they were owed a good life with an education. People seem to have lost sight of that. Or if they think they're owed something they think it's just them that's owed it and that everybody else should just pay for it themselves.
but she was recommended by the school, so I don't know what else to call it.
But who in their right mind takes an unpaid internship after graduation? That's not an internship, that's being taken advantage of by a weak job market. There's nothing worth studying there. It's a blight that needs to be stamped out. A way of having an employee without paying them, which at least in my country used to be very, very illegal.
now why is it I can't safely cross a street when I've got right of way? I got hit about 5 years ago carrying my bike across a street with the little blue guy telling me to cross. It was a cross walk seldom used by pedestrians since I had ridden out pretty far on my bike and was gonna go back the way I came. It didn't cross the woman who hit me's mind that somebody would ever cross there, so when the light turned red she just kept going...
the quality of the school she graduates from will determine her base salary, which will in turn determine how much she makes for pretty much the rest of her life. Raises are a percentage of your current pay and your next job will consider your current salary when bargaining.
It's amazing, and more than a little terrifying, how decisions you make as a dumb kid completely shape every aspect of your adult life...
it's not cheap to hire more teachers. You need more facilities, more resources. The kids can't pay enough to cover that cost. College is a _lot_ more expensive then folks believe. We've been hiding that cost with massive government subsidies. Those subsidies got pulled by Clinton & Bush Jr.
It's just like our roads. We've got the existing infrastructure that was paid for by the feds back in the day and it works, but it's not nearly enough and we're having real problems now because of it.
And you're right, it doesn't make sense. That's why it's a problem that's not being addressed let alone solved. It's hard to explain to people that a kid with a 3.8 GPA might be kicked out of school. It doesn't make any sense. You hear it and you don't believe it. So the problem exists but folks ignore it because they don't believe it's happening...
my kid got lucky and got a paid one, but she would have taken an unpaid one if she hadn't just to give her one more edge when it came time to select students.
What I'm saying is, kids aren't taking internships to make more money like they used to when I was a kid. They're taking them because college has become hyper competitive and if they don't have something besides a 4.0 they won't be allowed to proceed with their academic career. Basically, the study's implied conclusion (that kids make less money if they do an unpaid internship) is pointless. Kids aren't doing internships for more money after graduation. They're doing it out of desperation to get into their last 2 years of school. And yeah, that's kinda screwed up right there.
Not sure about the UK, but in the States you use unpaid internships to help get into your 300 level courses. After 30 years of budget cuts schools don't have enough space for all the applicants in most majors (especially medical, and not just full medical doctor, think Nursing, pharmacist, physical therapist, etc, etc). Even a perfect GPA won't guarantee you a spot anymore. So you volunteer, do extracurricular stuff and finally internships. My kid got lucky and got what's more or less a paid one. But it's like winning the lottery what with the number of applicants.
I've been saying this on and off for years. We're all about to get a taste of all that efficiency folks have been clamoring about for decades. All that bureaucracy and waste is one of the only things that made it possible to pry even a bit of money out of the hands of the super rich. If you think the economy sucks now wait till it's running at peak efficiency.
to feed the private prisons and divide the working class against each other. He most likely believes crime is increasing, even though 30 seconds on google proves otherwise.
because conjecture and law don't go hand in hand. People have tried to sue gun manufactures for selling a dangerous product and failed completely. Sure, gun manufactures have to sell you a gun that doesn't blow up in your hand, but that's about it.
And we can't address those issues because the people who pro-gun also tend to oppose addressing those issues. They don't want to have to pay for it. So they come to the poll to vote for their guns and stick around to vote against any measure that would solve things. For example, nobody cared about drugs until middle class (mostly white) folk started having problems. And all that got us was lip service. Meanwhile our AG is openly in favor of 'tough' drug laws, meaning longer sentences and bigger crackdown.
In 10 years with the savings from single payer healthcare. Seriously, google the cost savings. Insurance is robbing us blind
or _any_ Office suite? They're all boated with features. That's the point. They're crammed with features so you can make complex documents. Go use Abiword & gnumerics if you want something simple.
lobby. I hear how the right to keep and bear arms is to protect them from the government. If you just wanted a pistol to threaten a few punks with then gun control wouldn't be an issue. Hitler rounded up guns because the gap between a military and a populace wasn't anywhere near as wide in 1945 as it is now.
And no, the term is not dishonest. It's exactly what it says on the tin. You're a right wing troll or you're repeating talking points from one. My point, which you know full well, is that the working class should stop fighting among itself and switch to proven solutions to the problem of civilization.
Look. I get it. You don't like being told what to do. You didn't when you were a kid and you never grew out of it. But it's time to grow up. Stop dragging us down with your childishness. And If you really don't want to live in civilization go live in the Ozarks or Afghanistan or some crap. Leave. Go. Get out. We'll air drop you food from civilization when you start to starve to death.
Sorry, but what the devil are you on about? There are no laws anywhere regarding smart guns. Nor are there any plans to have laws regarding them (short of a few lawmakers trying to get the government to buy smart guns after they received rather generous donations from the makers of said smart guns).
:).
You're seeing a conspiracy where there is none and immediately jumping to a worst possible conclusion. Nobody is planing on forcing you or anyone else to use smart guns. If they're going to take your guns (they're not) they'll just send somebody to round 'em up. On the plus side you reminded me of this today
and moved on to Democratic Socialism, which is working just fine everywhere it's been tried (I know, you're already furiously typing something about Valenzuela without realizing that before the oil boom they were a hopelessly poor country and after the oil boom they've gone back to one).
Smart Guns are likely to be the same. It's a difficult problem to solve that's just in it's infancy. See, the solution to a difficult problem isn't to throw your hands up and say "I give up!" at the first sign or even the second of trouble. For the record some of us _like_ the idea of gun our kids can't accidentally shoot. And not all of us are planing on gunning down the first punk kid that breaks into our house. The dumb kid can have my TV. It's not worth his life.
Interstate commerce. Universities operate across state lines you know. And if you want to be a literalist then if you're not in a militia I'll be taking your guns please. And not just any militia, a well regulated one to boot.
And why don't you go live in a cave. I mean that. Stop using my roads (built with federal money even if they're local), my telecom network built with that same federal money, the clean water regulated by the Federal government, taking medicine developed largely with grants, etc, etc, etc, etc.
You benefit from my kid's hard work. Massively. You're being mean spirited and selfish and should be called out on it. I'm tired of you fair weather conservatives all in favor of personal responsibility as long as it's not something you're personally using. Move to Somalia and go enjoy your libertarian paradise.
backing that woman because she opposed progressive policies that benefit the working class. And Hillary couldn't give two shits about your guns either. She just needs some issue, any issue, to make her seem like something other than a Republican. Well, an issue that isn't economic anyway. She's not gonna support Single Payer in my lifetime.