Of course there is. There is free to use. Like the sidewalk on your street or a public library, which of course cost money to build and maintain. Everyone is perfectly aware of this, except for fiscal concern trolls.
Yes, but I think you may have misunderstood what that means. In Europe some kids go to university for free, but that's a privilege that's earned through academic achievement. It's not a right. Europeans only invest in those students who, through hard work and superior test scores, have proven that they're worthy of that investment. That's a far cry from Obama and his "everyone is entitled to go to college" bullshit.
Where, in Europe, the quality of the school a kid goes to isn't as dependent on how much money the parents make. Where, in Europe, kids don't have homelessness, hunger, or getting swept up in the drug war to give them more pressing concerns than what grade they get in English that semester.
And that's a far cry from your Social Darwinist bullshit.
So how do you explain the cost increases at private schools which don't receive state support for offsetting tuition?
When top public schools are charging over $30k a year, isn't the answer obvious? Because they can. And that's before we get to the profit motive, where the board needs their annual double digit increase in compensation.
So who is +5 insightful a comment that has gay/political slurs in it? It's ok to use slurs when you don't like the group he's making the slur against?
Dude. Teabaggers came up with the term teabagging. So complaining about "gay slurs" is like walking around with a sign announcing that you're an idiot, or one that says "keep your government hands off my Medicare".
The more they try to make college "affordable" via loans, scholarships, etc. the more the colleges and universities will raise their prices until it is just barely affordable by all participants.
If it's just free market forces, then new colleges would open up to compete for these dollars, forcing education costs back down through competition. Funny how pushers of this meme only want to talk about one side of supply-and-demand.
It is amazing that our parents and grandparents were able to do things like send men to the moon without plush padded seating and nicely carpeted hallways at their universities. Even so, they could still afford to get an education.
You mean when top tax brackets were 91%? Because, in part, because the states spent a lot more money on education "back in the day". California looked at the post WWII recession and decided education was the way out - so they built a world-class system of colleges and universities. That doesn't fit in with the tax cutting social darwinist storyline though, so it's left out. As well as countries like Finland where higher education is free to use.
All the responsibility is being shuffled onto the students. That's the problem.
"Who is their right mind goes 100k in debt for school?".
Someone who wants to go to a good law school, and double that for medical. Your unspoken implication is that only the well off have any business going into such high-end professions, thus starting a veritable caste system.
Is that a bug, or a feature for you? Don't bother with the "I put myself through school working part time in the 90's" that some helpful person posts in any of these discussions, when costs have doubled a few times since then.
Which is in a different universe from where students are today.
Go back to school at 3x the cost and then spend a year sending out resumes before you presume to lecture today's grads. Why is there's always some dude who starts up with their "back in myyyyy day" crap when costs have exploded since they graduated when Clinton was still president.
Mountains to molehills. Many long term incumbents are useless (Max Baucus) and are tools for whoever pays them. But term limits will turn every politician into a Max Baucus. Like I said the last time, every single one of them is going to be looking to his next job if they're going to be out of work in a few years. And what's going to set him up for a better job: serving his constituents or serving corporations, who will reward him with a choice lobbying or board position upon "retirement"?
Using term limits to deal with political corruption is like drinking Drano for an ulcer: not only is it not going to improve a single thing about your condition, it's going to make it worse.
GWB's father lost his 2nd term due to Ross Perot taking almost 20% of the vote, which arguably would have gone to GHWB & led to his reelection.
Myth. Perot earned votes from both Republican and Democratic voters. But the bottom line is that Clinton had already pulled ahead of Bush before Perot re-entered the race.
At the minimum, I wouldn't mind seeing term limits in Congress.
Because you want more corruption in Congress? With term limits, no politician will fear the wrath of the voters, but single one of them is going to be looking to his next job. And what's going to set him up for a better job: serving his constituents or serving corporations, who will reward him with a choice lobbying or board position upon "retirement"?
Please tell me you're being sarcastic, as that list has no basis in reality. Obama food an Mansanto exec in charge of food safety, wanted to extend the Iraq occupation but was forced to adhere to Bush's timeline, stalled on DADT until Congress forced his hand, etc etc.
You mean, it's eating the rest of the market. Android's expansion has come at the expense of Nokia, RIM, and now feature phone manufacturers, not Apple.
Yes yes, Apple only appeals to fashion victims, blah blah blah whargarrrrble. Don't you idiots ever get tired of these mindless memes which function only as easy answers to your cognitive dissonance about how something you hate could succeed?
It's trying to be somewhat polite and complimentary in order to completely deny Apple any kudos for their design or innovation. Hence, the original iPod was all about "fashion", not the microdrive or the clickwheel or the 400 Mpbs interface.
They never seem to get around to explaining why no other tech company has released or tried to release "fashionable" products, sending Apple back to being beleaguered. Then they usually mumble something about the Apple "cult", but also don't have an explanation why none of Apple's competitors have done the same, sending Apple back to being beleaguered....
Not really a response to his point, though. When IOS 7 comes out you can install it on any device that supports it. You aren't going to be able to install it immediately on an iPhone 5 but have to wait five months to install it on an iPad 2.
do your own work. a simple google of IOS virus will show you its not flawless
Actually, it's your work to prove your assertions. If you disagree, I'll just casually assert that you like to sleep with your mom, and it will be your job to prove otherwise.
My wife, who can't even type, has no problem navigating the file structure, finding what she wants and putting it on her phone/mp3 player. If she can't find something cntrl-f is amazingly handy.
Does she also like twiddling her thumbs for hours on end waiting for each track to finish transferring before she selects the next one? Or does she just cue up tracks until the system bogs down from dozens of concurrent copies and comes back the next day to see if it's done?
As opposed to, you know, music manager software that can queue up as many tracks as you want for transfer and process them sequentially in automated, rapid succession....
Kids want it because it does everything they want and it fits their budget. So do teens. College students. Fresh graduates. Family men.
Androids comparable to an iPhone 5 cost just as much as an iPhone 5. If you want to compare cheaper Androids to the latest iPhone, then you need to also need to remember than you can buy the older (but still freshly made) 4S or 4 for less money.
but he was accepting of imperfect products. If you thought otherwise, then you are an example of Steve's most valuable talent. His cult-like brainwashing
Translation: if you don't agree with me, you're crazy. And what are you going on about, "imperfect products"? If there is a company that makes "perfect products" year in and year out, why haven't they taken over the world? Where's Apple's billion-dollar boondoggles to match the Surface or the PlayStation 3?
Remember when Macbook Airs lost their backlit keyboard?... surely they didn't think this was something users wanted. Not even the most versatile touch typers are going to avoid looking at the keyboard SOMEtimes, at the very least to adjust their screen brightness.
Oh, and here I thought Apple only held a gun to people's heads on user-replaceable batteries, but you're telling us they did that on keyboards as well? Or, could just grow up and buy whatever it is that does whatever you want.
Apple did plenty of bombs under Jobs; the Cube, the early forms of Apple TV, et cetera.
How are profitable products "bombs"? Lone Ranger was a bomb. Surface was a bomb. The Apple TV has made made a tidy profit (though small next to IOS) and the Cube was discontinued after a lack of consumer interest. But where are the Apple products that have cost the company the odd two or eight hundred million dollars?
The guy got all his money through vendor lock-in and insane licensing models. If he was that bright, he'd be more innovative.
That's what's so insufferable about so many of the rich: the notion that luck or being in the right place at the right time had anything to do with their fortunes is a foreign concept to them. If Ellison was all that he would have gotten Sun turned around and reclaiming server marketshare, not just piss money away on boats.
I think that a lower-cost iPhone is not a bad idea
But that lower-cost iPhone has been around for half a decade, it's just called Last Year's iPhone. And an even cheaper option is available, the iPhone From Two Years Ago. Right now, an iPhone 5 is $200, a 4S is $100, and the 4 is free (with contract).
So what the Pointed Haired Analysts have been clamoring for has been with us almost from the beginning. Unless, of course, they mean an iPhone that wont be subjected to the monthly smartphone tax from the major carriers...
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there is. There is free to use. Like the sidewalk on your street or a public library, which of course cost money to build and maintain. Everyone is perfectly aware of this, except for fiscal concern trolls.
Where, in Europe, the quality of the school a kid goes to isn't as dependent on how much money the parents make. Where, in Europe, kids don't have homelessness, hunger, or getting swept up in the drug war to give them more pressing concerns than what grade they get in English that semester.
And that's a far cry from your Social Darwinist bullshit.
When top public schools are charging over $30k a year, isn't the answer obvious? Because they can. And that's before we get to the profit motive, where the board needs their annual double digit increase in compensation.
Dude. Teabaggers came up with the term teabagging. So complaining about "gay slurs" is like walking around with a sign announcing that you're an idiot, or one that says "keep your government hands off my Medicare".
If it's just free market forces, then new colleges would open up to compete for these dollars, forcing education costs back down through competition. Funny how pushers of this meme only want to talk about one side of supply-and-demand.
You mean when top tax brackets were 91%? Because, in part, because the states spent a lot more money on education "back in the day". California looked at the post WWII recession and decided education was the way out - so they built a world-class system of colleges and universities. That doesn't fit in with the tax cutting social darwinist storyline though, so it's left out. As well as countries like Finland where higher education is free to use.
All the responsibility is being shuffled onto the students. That's the problem.
Someone who wants to go to a good law school, and double that for medical. Your unspoken implication is that only the well off have any business going into such high-end professions, thus starting a veritable caste system.
Is that a bug, or a feature for you? Don't bother with the "I put myself through school working part time in the 90's" that some helpful person posts in any of these discussions, when costs have doubled a few times since then.
Which is in a different universe from where students are today.
Go back to school at 3x the cost and then spend a year sending out resumes before you presume to lecture today's grads. Why is there's always some dude who starts up with their "back in myyyyy day" crap when costs have exploded since they graduated when Clinton was still president.
Mountains to molehills. Many long term incumbents are useless (Max Baucus) and are tools for whoever pays them. But term limits will turn every politician into a Max Baucus. Like I said the last time, every single one of them is going to be looking to his next job if they're going to be out of work in a few years. And what's going to set him up for a better job: serving his constituents or serving corporations, who will reward him with a choice lobbying or board position upon "retirement"?
Using term limits to deal with political corruption is like drinking Drano for an ulcer: not only is it not going to improve a single thing about your condition, it's going to make it worse.
Myth. Perot earned votes from both Republican and Democratic voters. But the bottom line is that Clinton had already pulled ahead of Bush before Perot re-entered the race.
Because you want more corruption in Congress? With term limits, no politician will fear the wrath of the voters, but single one of them is going to be looking to his next job. And what's going to set him up for a better job: serving his constituents or serving corporations, who will reward him with a choice lobbying or board position upon "retirement"?
Please tell me you're being sarcastic, as that list has no basis in reality. Obama food an Mansanto exec in charge of food safety, wanted to extend the Iraq occupation but was forced to adhere to Bush's timeline, stalled on DADT until Congress forced his hand, etc etc.
You mean, it's eating the rest of the market. Android's expansion has come at the expense of Nokia, RIM, and now feature phone manufacturers, not Apple.
Oooo, anecdotes. Good night, Reagan.
It's trying to be somewhat polite and complimentary in order to completely deny Apple any kudos for their design or innovation. Hence, the original iPod was all about "fashion", not the microdrive or the clickwheel or the 400 Mpbs interface.
They never seem to get around to explaining why no other tech company has released or tried to release "fashionable" products, sending Apple back to being beleaguered. Then they usually mumble something about the Apple "cult", but also don't have an explanation why none of Apple's competitors have done the same, sending Apple back to being beleaguered....
Not really a response to his point, though. When IOS 7 comes out you can install it on any device that supports it. You aren't going to be able to install it immediately on an iPhone 5 but have to wait five months to install it on an iPad 2.
Actually, it's your work to prove your assertions. If you disagree, I'll just casually assert that you like to sleep with your mom, and it will be your job to prove otherwise.
Does she also like twiddling her thumbs for hours on end waiting for each track to finish transferring before she selects the next one? Or does she just cue up tracks until the system bogs down from dozens of concurrent copies and comes back the next day to see if it's done?
As opposed to, you know, music manager software that can queue up as many tracks as you want for transfer and process them sequentially in automated, rapid succession....
Who'd you learn to troll from, David Brooks?
Androids comparable to an iPhone 5 cost just as much as an iPhone 5. If you want to compare cheaper Androids to the latest iPhone, then you need to also need to remember than you can buy the older (but still freshly made) 4S or 4 for less money.
Riiiight. For you it's "loyalty", for them it's "blind fashion".
Stop drinking the Hatorade, and try checking out this newfangled concept called Self Awareness.
Translation: if you don't agree with me, you're crazy. And what are you going on about, "imperfect products"? If there is a company that makes "perfect products" year in and year out, why haven't they taken over the world? Where's Apple's billion-dollar boondoggles to match the Surface or the PlayStation 3?
Oh, and here I thought Apple only held a gun to people's heads on user-replaceable batteries, but you're telling us they did that on keyboards as well? Or, could just grow up and buy whatever it is that does whatever you want.
Really, do tell us where Jobs personally took credit for designing the iPod or the iPad, etc.
How are profitable products "bombs"? Lone Ranger was a bomb. Surface was a bomb. The Apple TV has made made a tidy profit (though small next to IOS) and the Cube was discontinued after a lack of consumer interest. But where are the Apple products that have cost the company the odd two or eight hundred million dollars?
That's what's so insufferable about so many of the rich: the notion that luck or being in the right place at the right time had anything to do with their fortunes is a foreign concept to them. If Ellison was all that he would have gotten Sun turned around and reclaiming server marketshare, not just piss money away on boats.
You're either liars or incompetent boobs.
But that lower-cost iPhone has been around for half a decade, it's just called Last Year's iPhone. And an even cheaper option is available, the iPhone From Two Years Ago. Right now, an iPhone 5 is $200, a 4S is $100, and the 4 is free (with contract).
So what the Pointed Haired Analysts have been clamoring for has been with us almost from the beginning. Unless, of course, they mean an iPhone that wont be subjected to the monthly smartphone tax from the major carriers...
Usually you see this excuse with lawsuits, or raising the minimum wage, but it's all the same crap.
All companies maximize revenue all the time.
If company can make more money by raising prices or firing workers, they'll go right ahead and do so.