Your claim of a limitless witch hunt is pretty laughable. In other administrations, it might have been a little bit more so, but you ignore that the people pleading guilty are multimillionaires. They have plenty of resources to fight charges with, and would be able to tie this up in court for years if they wanted to. But no. They rolled over with their tail between their legs voluntarily.
Anyone who isn't a hyper-delusional partisan can see that the only reason you do that is if you're saving your ass from something far, far worse. Nobody volunteers for a possible 5 years in federal prison. Especially not multimillionaires with plenty of resources to spend to defend themselves, and who are friendly with the president. I'm not sure there has been a time in history when someone had more of an advantage when facing federal charges than these folks had. And yet they plead out.
So what could they have possibly done that is so bad that they would need to take a federal plea bargain which could result in them spending time in federal prison? Humm...since every one of them lied about connections to Russia, I wonder if that might be part of it. Was it about the election? Money laundering? Bribery and corruption? We'll find out soon enough, I suspect.
If you don't seek out some real information, you are going to be in for a very rude surprise when this doesn't turn out the way you are hoping.
Wow. Just wow. Can you not see the irony of you embracing the right wing spin and labeling everything else fake news while making this statement?
Think about that, for just a second. How are you not doing exactly what you're complaining about "the other side" doing?
FFS, where do you think the terms "fake news" and "alternate facts" came from? Those terms came from people failing to seek out real information, being surprised when things didn't turn out the way they wanted them to, and needing to childishly rebrand reality to make it conform (at least in their mind) to their mistaken and ill-informed belief.
Bullshit yourself, unless you don't give a shit about the cost of healthcare.
Aetna Inc. AET -1.22% Chief Executive Mark T. Bertolini's compensation was valued at $17.3 million last year, up from $15.1 million in 2014, reflecting higher stock and option awards.
The highest paid employee in the Medicare/Medicare offices makes $222k annually. If you add up the top 100 earners in the Medicare/Medicade offices, you get about $17.6 million, which as we can see, is pretty much the price of ONE SINGLE HMO CEO. And how many of those are out there? And other C* officers?
I'll take those government bureaucrats over one in a for-profit opaque private entity, outside of any influence I might have, any day. At the end of the day, the amount the HMOs are scraping off the top is so extreme, that I have a very hard time believing that a government agency could do worse administering health care. The price and outcomes in countries that do administer their own is confirmation of this.
Speak for yourself! The box of wine is all the way in the other room. Filling up that 0.6L glass means I'm sitting down with a fancy $7 glass of wine. That's called being classy, not being a drunk when your wine costs that much by the glass.
A friend makes bank now after his CEO got pissed at sales and marketing doing this shit. His sole job is to go to sales meetings and keep sales honest. He knows the business well, and studies up on the customer to understand who they are and what they seem to need. Then he shoots down sales during the meeting when they start promising too much or trying to sell something that the customer doesn't really seem to want or need.
The marketing folks hate him, but the CEO, developers, and the customers love him.
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen the inside of a school since the chromebook revolution.
Chromebooks live on carts, usually in the library. Those carts are charging stations. Teachers reserve the carts, then someone hauls them down to their classroom, the kids pull the chromebooks off the carts, pop them open, use them, throw them back into the cart, and it goes back to the library. In general, there are enough for a sizable percent of the kids in a school to use at one time. Many schools are one-to-one, so every single student has one.
WAPs are in the drop ceiling in the classrooms and halls. While there are some computer labs, they don't really get used like they used to even 5 years ago. Computing is now a mainstream classroom thing, and it happens in most of the classrooms if not all of them at the same time.
All of the policies are centrally managed, and IT doesn't generally touch any of the carts filled with chromebooks. Broken ones might get looked at, but more than likely get shipped back to the vendor for a replacement, because they're under warranty. Or just tossed because the staff time in trying to fix a multi-year-old $200 device just isn't worth it.
When something like this breaks, the one guy on the IT payroll for a school suddenly has hundreds of non-functional appliances on his hands. There isn't an established network in each classroom that's accessible, and now that computing is a daily classroom activity, there just isn't lab capacity. Curriculum is designed around using chromebooks in about every classroom, meaning you can't just wait until homeroom to fix this shit.
Is this a pretty poor situation that schools have put themselves into? Yes. But that's reality.
You think that a school district somehow has the switches and cables to manually plug in 10,000 normally wifi enabled devices?
You think they're going to put network devices where students can access them to even be able to plug them in?
You think it's reasonable to take a class of 20-30 kids and string cables across the room?
I get the hate for Macs losing their ports, and that's one reason I moved away from them personally. But chromebooks are very strongly marketed towards education, and specifically, non-computer-lab education. They are general purpose devices used in classrooms, which don't have an established power or network infrastructure. WAPs are put in the ceilings, and the chromebooks are charged on the storage carts they wheel them into each classroom on.
This is one use-case where a wired infrastructure wouldn't work, and would be far worse as a backup than not having it at all.
Why are people so concerned about CAGW and yet oppose nuclear power?
It's an interesting question, and one I don't have a great answer for. My guesses?
*A lot of exposure to the 50s-60s media which made nuclear scary and dangerous. *A lack of understanding about how nuclear weapons and nuclear power are different. It's not like we teach that shit in school. *An overly cautious government which won't allow breeder reactors, and which takes a long time to approve newer, safer designs. This means older less safe designs, and way more spent fuel. *Radiation is invisible but a known killer. That makes it scary. Lack of understanding about it doesn't help. *Nuclear power plants take up a lot of space, are giant structures, an come with exclusionary zones and mandatory warning areas with monthly tests. NIMBY isn't entirely unreasonable in that regard.
That said I don't agree with the fear over nucear. Lets get some pebble bed reactors or other new designs up and running, and take care of all our baseline needs.
As the AC below pointed out, "I'm worried about the consequence of dealing with the problem" is vastly different from denying that the problem exists. One is a very rational position, and the other is irrational.
As another pointed out, if you think carbon credits are the only tool, than that's on you. Solar and wind are rapidly outpacing fossil fuels other than natural gas on price, and that'd accelerate if we shifted some of the subsidies from fossil fuels over to renewables to increase adoption. No reason that should cause a price increase.
And not to be totally unsympathetic, but if the poor and lower middle class can't figure out how to make a big dent in their energy bill, they're not trying that hard. I'm sitting here with 600W of equivalent incandescent lights on in the house drawing a total of 80W. How is that possible? $3 LED lights. If I run them 10 hrs per day, that's less than 1 KWH. And around here, that's around $0.10. For bulbs that should last 15 years.
If you're still worried about the poor and middle class, we can also offer rebates for home insulation and mandate efficiency standards for appliances. We already do both, but we can just ramp that up a little more, to make sure that they're getting the efficiency they need to offset any increase in price.
Other than grid-scale energy storage, we have all of the tools to mitigate the problem, if not take care of it altogether. We might be able to do it if people had some political will instead of just denying that the problem exists.
What I don't get is the need for people to spread alarmism.
Please point to the peer reviewed science that has turned out to be alarmism. You won't find much of it, because scientists have been very careful not to be alarmists, to the point of understating the problem.
Can you point to pseudo-science media being alarmist? Sure. But they are about everything, including deodorant, wearing bras to bed, and sunscreen.
If you can't separate the media trying to rile you up and make a buck from the actual science, you're a large part of the problem.
That's also assuming that all of those accounts are very active and designed as a primary revenue source. A lot just get some extra spending money when they're got the free time, and aren't putting in X hours per week making stuff. By not constraining this to users who make even just 1-2 posts per month, they're capturing a lot of occasional and potentially currently inactive users.
When you're not a consistent producer, I'd be shocked if people were willing to give you regular payments. I contribute to a couple of individuals making several thousand dollars per month. One has explicitly said that based on this revenue, he's making his stuff full time now. All produce multiple things per week on average, at minimum one per week even in the slowest of months.
The other thing to consider is that a lot of accounts are paid per item, not per month. Or paid per month but not per item. Or paid per item with a monthly limit. I can't see doing the fuzzy math they did given those fairly radical differences in pay structures.
Given a finite resource, once near capacity, paid prioritization is essentially the same as unpaid deprioritization. And there's limited reason to think that ISPs would not run everything near capacity, as we have ample evidence of this already.
In fact, there's a major financial benefit to them when net neutrality goes away to push ever closer to capacity. Every unpaid service that gets to "pay or die" status is a good one, because it either dies and frees up resources for your paid services, or it pays at which point you can either squeeze the unpaid more, or add just enough capacity to serve the new customer.
Now it's true that given a non-finite resource these aren't the same thing, and one could definitely see an artificial deprioritization to try to punish the freeloaders. However, the history of ISPs is that of capacity issues up the wazoo, so I'm skeptical that they would need to put in the effort to go this route. (But I bet they will anyway, because being evil is apparently their thing.)
I think your sexist theories are being supported by pretty shoddy data.
and even with the report screwing-up and not counting men that worked more than 24 hours straight......the average was 74 hours a week for the male engineers.
You do realize that that's more than six 12hr shifts per week, which is illegal in many states regardless of job classification. Regardless, who the fuck is working 74 hrs per week, and what is wrong with them? That's an absolutely abusive working schedule, and I can't fathom why someone would volunteer for that for any length of time. And unless those men are getting paid 106% more, and most of the wage-gap data shows far less than this, they are fucking dumbasses for working that much for so little extra pay.
Of course, more than likely what you're doing is not controlling for job type as well as using crappy data, to which you've already admitted.
If you want to use data to be sexist, at least use somewhat quality data and analysis methods.
What I don't get is what you get out of your denialism.
Are you intellectually or emotionally not able to handle a future where climate change causes a lot of stress to our social, political, or economic systems? Is your fantasy world of "everything is fine, you're all wrong" more comforting to you?
Are you afraid that you'll be forced to change your life as part of a large-scale drive to mitigate these issues?
Do you have a vested financial interest in continued CO2 emissions?
Or is it just an ego thing, where you're not able to accept what experts tell you, and you think you know more than them, so you grab some unscientific bullshit to make yourself feel right? (Hint: People like Matt Ridley get denounced as deniers because they are. When they've got some peer-reviewed science to back them up, they won't be.)
What is the draw of your denialism? It's really baffling to me.
I have seen some documentaries where it seems seems like a shitty life peddling drugs on a street corner or doing petty crime, but they don't really have any alternatives because they got shit education and shit work history and a criminal record and probably couldn't get a job at McDonald's if they tried. If they could simply stop, maybe some more actually would.
And even if some did, that's better than where we are now. That might mean we could step back from some of our police state, saving more money. Perhaps routing that to better mental health and substance abuse programs further improving the situation.
And perhaps some would start their own business. Or just pick up a hobby that would benefit them and those around them.
My concern is if not enough people do this. And if we generationalize and stigmatize UBI-only families. It could be a huge step forward, but there needs to be a real cultural shift for that to happen.
I'm lucky to have a job where I'm judged based on shit not going wrong, and if it does, that getting fixed quickly. What that means is that I can and do blow off at 3pm sometimes when I'm brain-dead or nothing is on fire. In exchange, when things are on fire, I'm generally a lot more useful than if I was putting in 60 hrs a week.
Could I be more productive at work? No. I could be less effective at my core duties, while more productive at busy-work. But my core duty is to make things not halt and catch on fire. The trade-off is just not worth it for the business.
I wish there were more managers in the world and more jobs set up like this. Lets do great work and go home early. Lets not just slog along for hours and hours in between posting to slashdot.
Which would be an issue if the cost for community college in Oregon didn't hover around $100/credit. 12 credits a semester and you're looking at $2,400 for the year. If you click the link at the end of that sentence, you get this:
Oregon Promise will cover up to the average tuition charged by an Oregon community college ($3,540 in 2017-18). Some community colleges have a higher or lower tuition cost than this average. If the tuition cost is above the average, the student is responsible for the difference. If the tuition cost is below this average, Oregon Promise pays up to that college’s actual tuition cost.
So it does appear to be free community college tuition, despite the amounts looking shockingly low. But if your local branch is more expensive, you might have to commute to another one to get your education closer to free.
Actually, at my hourly rate, it costs me about $0.50 to make a pot of coffee in labor time. Spread across 5 cups, that knocks the price up to $0.23 per cup, which definitely makes waiting in line at Starbucks far cheaper and more efficient.
It proved that charter schools, which operate with smaller budgets and less regulation perform better
Of course they do! They don't have to take kids with disabilities, poor kids, or anyone that might drag down their scores. They cater to the parents with more money, and are yet another attempt at segregation, sucking money out of public schools now seeing an increasingly larger percentage of students who are poor and have disabilities.
When you actually do a apples-to-apples comparison of how charter schools are doing, they don't look very good at all. When you ignore the above mentioned dynamics, they look great!
Can you point to where I claimed that HVDC was a bad option for long distance power transmission? I was arguing the opposite in the first post of mine you responded to calling it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you've got bigger problems than I thought. Good luck with life! Reality is really going to be painful for you.
News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters!
Your claim of a limitless witch hunt is pretty laughable. In other administrations, it might have been a little bit more so, but you ignore that the people pleading guilty are multimillionaires. They have plenty of resources to fight charges with, and would be able to tie this up in court for years if they wanted to. But no. They rolled over with their tail between their legs voluntarily.
Anyone who isn't a hyper-delusional partisan can see that the only reason you do that is if you're saving your ass from something far, far worse. Nobody volunteers for a possible 5 years in federal prison. Especially not multimillionaires with plenty of resources to spend to defend themselves, and who are friendly with the president. I'm not sure there has been a time in history when someone had more of an advantage when facing federal charges than these folks had. And yet they plead out.
So what could they have possibly done that is so bad that they would need to take a federal plea bargain which could result in them spending time in federal prison? Humm...since every one of them lied about connections to Russia, I wonder if that might be part of it. Was it about the election? Money laundering? Bribery and corruption? We'll find out soon enough, I suspect.
If you don't seek out some real information, you are going to be in for a very rude surprise when this doesn't turn out the way you are hoping.
Wow. Just wow. Can you not see the irony of you embracing the right wing spin and labeling everything else fake news while making this statement?
Think about that, for just a second. How are you not doing exactly what you're complaining about "the other side" doing?
FFS, where do you think the terms "fake news" and "alternate facts" came from? Those terms came from people failing to seek out real information, being surprised when things didn't turn out the way they wanted them to, and needing to childishly rebrand reality to make it conform (at least in their mind) to their mistaken and ill-informed belief.
Bullshit yourself, unless you don't give a shit about the cost of healthcare.
Aetna Inc. AET -1.22% Chief Executive Mark T. Bertolini's compensation was valued at $17.3 million last year, up from $15.1 million in 2014, reflecting higher stock and option awards.
The highest paid employee in the Medicare/Medicare offices makes $222k annually. If you add up the top 100 earners in the Medicare/Medicade offices, you get about $17.6 million, which as we can see, is pretty much the price of ONE SINGLE HMO CEO. And how many of those are out there? And other C* officers?
I'll take those government bureaucrats over one in a for-profit opaque private entity, outside of any influence I might have, any day. At the end of the day, the amount the HMOs are scraping off the top is so extreme, that I have a very hard time believing that a government agency could do worse administering health care. The price and outcomes in countries that do administer their own is confirmation of this.
Speak for yourself! The box of wine is all the way in the other room. Filling up that 0.6L glass means I'm sitting down with a fancy $7 glass of wine. That's called being classy, not being a drunk when your wine costs that much by the glass.
There should be a law against sneaking through unrelaed laws, but if would never get through...
Well, duh, just sneak it in an unrelated law!
A friend makes bank now after his CEO got pissed at sales and marketing doing this shit. His sole job is to go to sales meetings and keep sales honest. He knows the business well, and studies up on the customer to understand who they are and what they seem to need. Then he shoots down sales during the meeting when they start promising too much or trying to sell something that the customer doesn't really seem to want or need.
The marketing folks hate him, but the CEO, developers, and the customers love him.
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen the inside of a school since the chromebook revolution.
Chromebooks live on carts, usually in the library. Those carts are charging stations. Teachers reserve the carts, then someone hauls them down to their classroom, the kids pull the chromebooks off the carts, pop them open, use them, throw them back into the cart, and it goes back to the library. In general, there are enough for a sizable percent of the kids in a school to use at one time. Many schools are one-to-one, so every single student has one.
WAPs are in the drop ceiling in the classrooms and halls. While there are some computer labs, they don't really get used like they used to even 5 years ago. Computing is now a mainstream classroom thing, and it happens in most of the classrooms if not all of them at the same time.
All of the policies are centrally managed, and IT doesn't generally touch any of the carts filled with chromebooks. Broken ones might get looked at, but more than likely get shipped back to the vendor for a replacement, because they're under warranty. Or just tossed because the staff time in trying to fix a multi-year-old $200 device just isn't worth it.
When something like this breaks, the one guy on the IT payroll for a school suddenly has hundreds of non-functional appliances on his hands. There isn't an established network in each classroom that's accessible, and now that computing is a daily classroom activity, there just isn't lab capacity. Curriculum is designed around using chromebooks in about every classroom, meaning you can't just wait until homeroom to fix this shit.
Is this a pretty poor situation that schools have put themselves into? Yes. But that's reality.
Lol, really?
You think that a school district somehow has the switches and cables to manually plug in 10,000 normally wifi enabled devices?
You think they're going to put network devices where students can access them to even be able to plug them in?
You think it's reasonable to take a class of 20-30 kids and string cables across the room?
I get the hate for Macs losing their ports, and that's one reason I moved away from them personally. But chromebooks are very strongly marketed towards education, and specifically, non-computer-lab education. They are general purpose devices used in classrooms, which don't have an established power or network infrastructure. WAPs are put in the ceilings, and the chromebooks are charged on the storage carts they wheel them into each classroom on.
This is one use-case where a wired infrastructure wouldn't work, and would be far worse as a backup than not having it at all.
Why are people so concerned about CAGW and yet oppose nuclear power?
It's an interesting question, and one I don't have a great answer for. My guesses?
*A lot of exposure to the 50s-60s media which made nuclear scary and dangerous.
*A lack of understanding about how nuclear weapons and nuclear power are different. It's not like we teach that shit in school.
*An overly cautious government which won't allow breeder reactors, and which takes a long time to approve newer, safer designs. This means older less safe designs, and way more spent fuel.
*Radiation is invisible but a known killer. That makes it scary. Lack of understanding about it doesn't help.
*Nuclear power plants take up a lot of space, are giant structures, an come with exclusionary zones and mandatory warning areas with monthly tests. NIMBY isn't entirely unreasonable in that regard.
That said I don't agree with the fear over nucear. Lets get some pebble bed reactors or other new designs up and running, and take care of all our baseline needs.
As the AC below pointed out, "I'm worried about the consequence of dealing with the problem" is vastly different from denying that the problem exists. One is a very rational position, and the other is irrational.
As another pointed out, if you think carbon credits are the only tool, than that's on you. Solar and wind are rapidly outpacing fossil fuels other than natural gas on price, and that'd accelerate if we shifted some of the subsidies from fossil fuels over to renewables to increase adoption. No reason that should cause a price increase.
And not to be totally unsympathetic, but if the poor and lower middle class can't figure out how to make a big dent in their energy bill, they're not trying that hard. I'm sitting here with 600W of equivalent incandescent lights on in the house drawing a total of 80W. How is that possible? $3 LED lights. If I run them 10 hrs per day, that's less than 1 KWH. And around here, that's around $0.10. For bulbs that should last 15 years.
If you're still worried about the poor and middle class, we can also offer rebates for home insulation and mandate efficiency standards for appliances. We already do both, but we can just ramp that up a little more, to make sure that they're getting the efficiency they need to offset any increase in price.
Other than grid-scale energy storage, we have all of the tools to mitigate the problem, if not take care of it altogether. We might be able to do it if people had some political will instead of just denying that the problem exists.
What I don't get is the need for people to spread alarmism.
Please point to the peer reviewed science that has turned out to be alarmism. You won't find much of it, because scientists have been very careful not to be alarmists, to the point of understating the problem.
Can you point to pseudo-science media being alarmist? Sure. But they are about everything, including deodorant, wearing bras to bed, and sunscreen.
If you can't separate the media trying to rile you up and make a buck from the actual science, you're a large part of the problem.
That's also assuming that all of those accounts are very active and designed as a primary revenue source. A lot just get some extra spending money when they're got the free time, and aren't putting in X hours per week making stuff. By not constraining this to users who make even just 1-2 posts per month, they're capturing a lot of occasional and potentially currently inactive users.
When you're not a consistent producer, I'd be shocked if people were willing to give you regular payments. I contribute to a couple of individuals making several thousand dollars per month. One has explicitly said that based on this revenue, he's making his stuff full time now. All produce multiple things per week on average, at minimum one per week even in the slowest of months.
The other thing to consider is that a lot of accounts are paid per item, not per month. Or paid per month but not per item. Or paid per item with a monthly limit. I can't see doing the fuzzy math they did given those fairly radical differences in pay structures.
Could they not be the same thing?
Given a finite resource, once near capacity, paid prioritization is essentially the same as unpaid deprioritization. And there's limited reason to think that ISPs would not run everything near capacity, as we have ample evidence of this already.
In fact, there's a major financial benefit to them when net neutrality goes away to push ever closer to capacity. Every unpaid service that gets to "pay or die" status is a good one, because it either dies and frees up resources for your paid services, or it pays at which point you can either squeeze the unpaid more, or add just enough capacity to serve the new customer.
Now it's true that given a non-finite resource these aren't the same thing, and one could definitely see an artificial deprioritization to try to punish the freeloaders. However, the history of ISPs is that of capacity issues up the wazoo, so I'm skeptical that they would need to put in the effort to go this route. (But I bet they will anyway, because being evil is apparently their thing.)
I think your sexist theories are being supported by pretty shoddy data.
and even with the report screwing-up and not counting men that worked more than 24 hours straight......the average was 74 hours a week for the male engineers.
You do realize that that's more than six 12hr shifts per week, which is illegal in many states regardless of job classification. Regardless, who the fuck is working 74 hrs per week, and what is wrong with them? That's an absolutely abusive working schedule, and I can't fathom why someone would volunteer for that for any length of time. And unless those men are getting paid 106% more, and most of the wage-gap data shows far less than this, they are fucking dumbasses for working that much for so little extra pay.
Of course, more than likely what you're doing is not controlling for job type as well as using crappy data, to which you've already admitted.
If you want to use data to be sexist, at least use somewhat quality data and analysis methods.
What I don't get is what you get out of your denialism.
Are you intellectually or emotionally not able to handle a future where climate change causes a lot of stress to our social, political, or economic systems? Is your fantasy world of "everything is fine, you're all wrong" more comforting to you?
Are you afraid that you'll be forced to change your life as part of a large-scale drive to mitigate these issues?
Do you have a vested financial interest in continued CO2 emissions?
Or is it just an ego thing, where you're not able to accept what experts tell you, and you think you know more than them, so you grab some unscientific bullshit to make yourself feel right? (Hint: People like Matt Ridley get denounced as deniers because they are. When they've got some peer-reviewed science to back them up, they won't be.)
What is the draw of your denialism? It's really baffling to me.
I have seen some documentaries where it seems seems like a shitty life peddling drugs on a street corner or doing petty crime, but they don't really have any alternatives because they got shit education and shit work history and a criminal record and probably couldn't get a job at McDonald's if they tried. If they could simply stop, maybe some more actually would.
And even if some did, that's better than where we are now. That might mean we could step back from some of our police state, saving more money. Perhaps routing that to better mental health and substance abuse programs further improving the situation.
And perhaps some would start their own business. Or just pick up a hobby that would benefit them and those around them.
My concern is if not enough people do this. And if we generationalize and stigmatize UBI-only families. It could be a huge step forward, but there needs to be a real cultural shift for that to happen.
Because you can't tax the corporations at that level, or anything even remotely close to that level.
Why not? (Aside from the fact that they own the government lock, stock, and barrel.)
I'm lucky to have a job where I'm judged based on shit not going wrong, and if it does, that getting fixed quickly. What that means is that I can and do blow off at 3pm sometimes when I'm brain-dead or nothing is on fire. In exchange, when things are on fire, I'm generally a lot more useful than if I was putting in 60 hrs a week.
Could I be more productive at work? No. I could be less effective at my core duties, while more productive at busy-work. But my core duty is to make things not halt and catch on fire. The trade-off is just not worth it for the business.
I wish there were more managers in the world and more jobs set up like this. Lets do great work and go home early. Lets not just slog along for hours and hours in between posting to slashdot.
Which would be an issue if the cost for community college in Oregon didn't hover around $100/credit. 12 credits a semester and you're looking at $2,400 for the year. If you click the link at the end of that sentence, you get this:
Oregon Promise will cover up to the average tuition charged by an Oregon community college ($3,540 in 2017-18). Some community colleges have a higher or lower tuition cost than this average. If the tuition cost is above the average, the student is responsible for the difference. If the tuition cost is below this average, Oregon Promise pays up to that college’s actual tuition cost.
So it does appear to be free community college tuition, despite the amounts looking shockingly low. But if your local branch is more expensive, you might have to commute to another one to get your education closer to free.
Actually, at my hourly rate, it costs me about $0.50 to make a pot of coffee in labor time. Spread across 5 cups, that knocks the price up to $0.23 per cup, which definitely makes waiting in line at Starbucks far cheaper and more efficient.
It proved that charter schools, which operate with smaller budgets and less regulation perform better
Of course they do! They don't have to take kids with disabilities, poor kids, or anyone that might drag down their scores. They cater to the parents with more money, and are yet another attempt at segregation, sucking money out of public schools now seeing an increasingly larger percentage of students who are poor and have disabilities.
When you actually do a apples-to-apples comparison of how charter schools are doing, they don't look very good at all. When you ignore the above mentioned dynamics, they look great!
"We sued someone and didn't even know how old they were."
If you know that little about who you are suing, isn't that grounds for it to be thrown out immediately?
Can you point to where I claimed that HVDC was a bad option for long distance power transmission? I was arguing the opposite in the first post of mine you responded to calling it wrong.