Like many libertarian/conservative ideas, it sounds like it might work....until it's subjected to two seconds of scrutiny.
If universities start paying for tuition out of endowments, then they have an even greater interest in increasing the size of said endowments. This means there will be a greater emphasis on financially profitable degrees - like finance and petroleum engineering - while less-fiscally-rewarding-but-still-important degrees like education and public health are marginalized.
That's the degrees. Then there's the students. Sure, that kid applying from a shitty school in Detroit pulling himself up by his 4.0 average bootstraps, Reagan would be proud. But how much money is his family likely to donate compared to that dumb fuck applicant whose last name happens to be Walton?
The end result of this Libertarian/conservative idea is that a service accessible to the poor and working class will become a luxury for those who can afford it. Funny how often that happens.....
Canada and the US really aren't that different despite the rhetoric.
Eh? Canada wasn't affected by the worldwide fiscal crisis that struck the U.S. and Europe. Because they regulate their banks. And Canada passed universal health care decades ago, province by province. Whereas in the United States there's a proposed law in California, and a public option in Vermont that may someday become single payer.
Aside from the discrimination against blacks, education in the US was pretty decent.
Education was a fraction of a percentage of the cost it is now. Boomers could attend first rate universities for a few hundred bucks a year. Current fiscal reality is somewhat different for today's students.
We need a federal government if for no other reason that it provides basic services when many states would not. Without federal spending, plenty of red states would be third world countries right now.
Even though it's mentioned twice; first in the Preamble, and then in Article I, Section 8.
You also skipped right over the fact that the Air Force and much of the military-industrial-spying complex is just as unconstitutional under a strict reading of Article 1, Section 8. Just like every other so-called 'strict constructionist'.
It's almost as if you're a bunch of hacks making arguments that only apply to spending that you don't like. Huh, interesting.
All that typing, and yet you still failed to refute a single fact or statement in my post.
What points? What facts? All you did was run around with your hair on fire yelling about communists in the State Department, I mean the evils of public-sector unions. Whereas I pointed to two current examples of how public-sector unions are actually needed.
Instead, all you did was point out how incompetent and corrupt government is, which is an argument against having government negotiate with a third party to spend other people's money.
LOL. "Fiscal conservatives" run for office on the notion that government doesn't work, then do their damndest to prove that notion correct. It was Reagan that fired the air traffic controllers, and it was a Republican Congress that passed a law requiring the Post Office to fully fund pensions for people that aren't even born yet - a requirement that's applied to no other state entity or business.
Thanks for helping to make my points!
You do realize that your beliefs are hollow when you can't defend them with anything more than lazy hand waving, right?
What, did some teacher run over your dog on the way to a union meeting when you were five?
People like you are the reason we have unions in the first place. Unneeded in the public sector? Because postal workers should roll over and accept 100,000+ in job cuts to cover a fiscal hole created by Congress, when they mandated that the Post Office fully fund pensions for the next 75 years - meaning people who haven't even been born yet? PATCO - one of their main goals of the strike was to get a shorter work week to maintain the intense levels of concentration needed to keep planes from flying into eachother.
Instead, Reagan fired all the traffic controllers, and now you have them dozing off on their shifts because they might only have a couple hours off between shifts.
So my argument would be that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to think that those who believe in free-markets are doing wishful thinking.
Except that's exactly what they are doing. The natural, end result of capitalism is consolidation and eventual monopolies - which limit choice and prevent new competitors from entering the market, further limiting choice.
Libertarian policy is faith-based policy, as that's all it has to support it.
What about it? General Welfare which is mentioned twice? Or the Bill of Rights that Paul doesn't believe applies to the states? Meaning if your state bans guns and starts a payroll tax that tithes to the Mormon Church, Paul would be just fine with that?
For instance, Toyota lobbied in 2007 to keep low CAFE fuel standards in the USA. Why? To keep US automakers at a competitive disadvantage.
Because Toyota likes selling high-margin SUV's and trucks right along with Detroit.
When I was a kid I was a firm believer in government regulation and a public-private system of corporate governance... but now all I see is unrestrained and unfettered insanity. To call this capitalism is an insult to Marxist Philosophy.
Except this is the natural end result of capitalism: consolidation, elimination of competition, regulatory capture, and industry-friendly legislation written by people hired from the same industry. Like the Health Insurance Profit Protection Act signed by Obama last year, for example. Written by a woman who used to head up the lobbying division for Wellpoint.
Not when you consider that our military budget is $1.2 trillion. The "official" figure is far less, but that's because they cheat and leave out spending that's obviously military spending. Like the VA Department, the DoE managing our nuclear stockpile, interest on past war spending, etc.
And considering that we're surrounded by the worlds largest oceans and two friendly nations, and that the last time we faced an invasion was 200 freaking years ago....we could lop a trillion off our annual defense budget and still be massively overprotected.
I never understood the purpose of the federal department of education.
Probably because you're being willfully obtuse. We have a Federal DoE to....promote education across the country. Leaving it up to the states is, as usual, a joke as some states wouldn't give a shit. Education for those who can afford it, not a basic foundation of society.
But that's like arguing that current budget cuts wont affect Medicare patients, only Medicare providers: disingenuous, because it means the same thing in the end.
You already know what authorizes such spending - you just ignore it. Even though it's mentioned twice; first in the Preamble, and then in Article I, Section 8.
Funny how you guys never complain about the "unconstitutionality" of the Air Force/NORAD/CIA, even though the Constitution only "explicitly" authorizes Congress to fund an Army and a Navy......
It's not really so much a failure to give back specific things (though honestly, a pretty GUI would seem a fair exchange for a stable kernel); it's looking for an excuse to bitch because it's Apple.
FTFY.
what I object to is that they don't provide documentation on how to get an iPod to work with Linux
Which would be a great point, if Apple had ever advertized the iPod as working with Linux. But that's okay, I'll just go cruise over to the Games section on Slashdot and read about all the people complaining that Nintendo hasn't provided tools to install Linux on the Wii or DS platforms...
...oh wait, I wont. Because this complaint is aimed at Apple. and only at Apple.
But... the Xeon based systems are WAAAAY overpriced. Apple want $1050 for 24gb of ram. I bought the same RAM from a normal vender for $300.
Uhhh....that's been the case for decades. Apple has always charged an arm, a leg, and a kidney for RAM and hard drive upgrades. If their upgrade pricing is "costing" them professionals, how did Apple get them in the first place?
Do you use a cannon or a howitzer for that projection? You're repeating a Randian fantasy that's been debunked more times than the idea that Clinton was responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge. It's a fable put together to seem reasonable to people ignorant of history, like the yarn that DDT bans killed millions because the pesticide kept malaria-carrying mosquitos in check. Except the yarn is total bullshit, because 1) DDT was never banned for mosquito control, but agricultural use which 2) bred DDT-resistant mosquitos.
But back to the Great Depression, and the canard that trade laws made the depression worse. So go ahead and grab a DeLorean, go back in time and pass the biggest, baddest free trade law you want. Just who was going to buy goods and materials to bring jobs to 15 million unemployed Americans?
Can't be done. Whereas massive Kenysian stimulus not only can be done, but was proven to work with the New Deal - which put 4 million Americans back to work in 4 months through direct hiring programs - and World War II. High marginal tax rates. Direct hire. It works.
Randian voodoo economics? Not only has it never worked, it's only resulted in skyrocketing income disparity and misery for the poor and working class.
It's no different at all. Stallman is parading around "Freedom" as all software being open source. Which means that for Stallman's "Freedom" to exist, all software must be open source. Which means that developers aren't free to release products however they want if we're going to have this "Freedom".
Just because Stallman isn't calling for new copyright laws that enforce GPLv3 as the means, doesn't change the fact that that is the end that he wants.
You are poutraged. Since you ignored it, here it is a second time:
Jobs was instrumental in the development of the personal computer and powerful, easy to use smartphones and PDA's. You could say the industry would have gone in the same directions with or without Jobs - but you could say the same thing for Turing.
Turing was at the forefront of the development of electronic computing. Jobs was at the forefront of the development of personal computers and making tablets and smartphones that don't suck.
They were both hugely influential in blatantly obvious - though different - ways. And if you would put down the Pouterade for two seconds, it would be obvious to you too.
"Caving" implies that Obama keeps giving in to the opposition, when he's made it very, very, very clear by now that he agrees with the "opposition". All you have to do is ignore the words coming out of his mouth and look at what he chooses to do.
But patents != trademarks, and Apple hasn't been a total patent troll with their library. With a possible exception of their current court fight with Samsung et all, but IANAPL. I hope the mobile phone market doesn't end up like the graphic software market a few years ago, where Macromedia and Adobe would sue each other every six months or so.....
That's just lazy - "here, go read this book and prove my position for me!". Since you didn't actually address my post, I'll repeat it:
Then explain why Apple dominates the MP3 player and tablet markets, instead of going out of business. Don't bother with the marketing canard, as if other tech companies are prevented from hiring Madison Avenue.
Sounds more like Jobs didn't give a shit about what you want. And he probably would have been the first one to tell you to go right ahead and buy what you do want, no skin off Apple's nose.
Do you freaking know how to read? Since you skipped it the first time:
Or, maybe just realize that entrepreneur != inventor, and vice versa.
I know perfectly well who Alan Turing was: an instrumental player in the development of electronic computing. As Jobs was instrumental in the development of the personal computer and powerful, easy to use smartphones and PDA's. You could say the industry would have gone in the same directions with or without Jobs - but you could say the same thing for Turing. So, one more time if the upper part of your monitor is still covered in spittle:
Or, maybe just realize that entrepreneur != inventor, and vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many libertarian/conservative ideas, it sounds like it might work....until it's subjected to two seconds of scrutiny.
If universities start paying for tuition out of endowments, then they have an even greater interest in increasing the size of said endowments. This means there will be a greater emphasis on financially profitable degrees - like finance and petroleum engineering - while less-fiscally-rewarding-but-still-important degrees like education and public health are marginalized.
That's the degrees. Then there's the students. Sure, that kid applying from a shitty school in Detroit pulling himself up by his 4.0 average bootstraps, Reagan would be proud. But how much money is his family likely to donate compared to that dumb fuck applicant whose last name happens to be Walton?
The end result of this Libertarian/conservative idea is that a service accessible to the poor and working class will become a luxury for those who can afford it. Funny how often that happens.....
Eh? Canada wasn't affected by the worldwide fiscal crisis that struck the U.S. and Europe. Because they regulate their banks. And Canada passed universal health care decades ago, province by province. Whereas in the United States there's a proposed law in California, and a public option in Vermont that may someday become single payer.
Education was a fraction of a percentage of the cost it is now. Boomers could attend first rate universities for a few hundred bucks a year. Current fiscal reality is somewhat different for today's students.
We need a federal government if for no other reason that it provides basic services when many states would not. Without federal spending, plenty of red states would be third world countries right now.
Reading comprehension?
You also skipped right over the fact that the Air Force and much of the military-industrial-spying complex is just as unconstitutional under a strict reading of Article 1, Section 8. Just like every other so-called 'strict constructionist'.
It's almost as if you're a bunch of hacks making arguments that only apply to spending that you don't like. Huh, interesting.
What points? What facts? All you did was run around with your hair on fire yelling about communists in the State Department, I mean the evils of public-sector unions. Whereas I pointed to two current examples of how public-sector unions are actually needed.
LOL. "Fiscal conservatives" run for office on the notion that government doesn't work, then do their damndest to prove that notion correct. It was Reagan that fired the air traffic controllers, and it was a Republican Congress that passed a law requiring the Post Office to fully fund pensions for people that aren't even born yet - a requirement that's applied to no other state entity or business.
You do realize that your beliefs are hollow when you can't defend them with anything more than lazy hand waving, right?
As opposed to your citation-free numbers?
What, did some teacher run over your dog on the way to a union meeting when you were five?
People like you are the reason we have unions in the first place. Unneeded in the public sector? Because postal workers should roll over and accept 100,000+ in job cuts to cover a fiscal hole created by Congress, when they mandated that the Post Office fully fund pensions for the next 75 years - meaning people who haven't even been born yet? PATCO - one of their main goals of the strike was to get a shorter work week to maintain the intense levels of concentration needed to keep planes from flying into eachother.
Instead, Reagan fired all the traffic controllers, and now you have them dozing off on their shifts because they might only have a couple hours off between shifts.
Except that's exactly what they are doing. The natural, end result of capitalism is consolidation and eventual monopolies - which limit choice and prevent new competitors from entering the market, further limiting choice.
Libertarian policy is faith-based policy, as that's all it has to support it.
What about it? General Welfare which is mentioned twice? Or the Bill of Rights that Paul doesn't believe applies to the states? Meaning if your state bans guns and starts a payroll tax that tithes to the Mormon Church, Paul would be just fine with that?
Are you?
Because Toyota likes selling high-margin SUV's and trucks right along with Detroit.
Except this is the natural end result of capitalism: consolidation, elimination of competition, regulatory capture, and industry-friendly legislation written by people hired from the same industry. Like the Health Insurance Profit Protection Act signed by Obama last year, for example. Written by a woman who used to head up the lobbying division for Wellpoint.
Not when you consider that our military budget is $1.2 trillion. The "official" figure is far less, but that's because they cheat and leave out spending that's obviously military spending. Like the VA Department, the DoE managing our nuclear stockpile, interest on past war spending, etc.
And considering that we're surrounded by the worlds largest oceans and two friendly nations, and that the last time we faced an invasion was 200 freaking years ago....we could lop a trillion off our annual defense budget and still be massively overprotected.
Probably because you're being willfully obtuse. We have a Federal DoE to....promote education across the country. Leaving it up to the states is, as usual, a joke as some states wouldn't give a shit. Education for those who can afford it, not a basic foundation of society.
But that's like arguing that current budget cuts wont affect Medicare patients, only Medicare providers: disingenuous, because it means the same thing in the end.
You already know what authorizes such spending - you just ignore it. Even though it's mentioned twice; first in the Preamble, and then in Article I, Section 8.
Funny how you guys never complain about the "unconstitutionality" of the Air Force/NORAD/CIA, even though the Constitution only "explicitly" authorizes Congress to fund an Army and a Navy......
FTFY.
Which would be a great point, if Apple had ever advertized the iPod as working with Linux. But that's okay, I'll just go cruise over to the Games section on Slashdot and read about all the people complaining that Nintendo hasn't provided tools to install Linux on the Wii or DS platforms...
...oh wait, I wont. Because this complaint is aimed at Apple. and only at Apple.
Uhhh....that's been the case for decades. Apple has always charged an arm, a leg, and a kidney for RAM and hard drive upgrades. If their upgrade pricing is "costing" them professionals, how did Apple get them in the first place?
Do you use a cannon or a howitzer for that projection? You're repeating a Randian fantasy that's been debunked more times than the idea that Clinton was responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge. It's a fable put together to seem reasonable to people ignorant of history, like the yarn that DDT bans killed millions because the pesticide kept malaria-carrying mosquitos in check. Except the yarn is total bullshit, because 1) DDT was never banned for mosquito control, but agricultural use which 2) bred DDT-resistant mosquitos.
But back to the Great Depression, and the canard that trade laws made the depression worse. So go ahead and grab a DeLorean, go back in time and pass the biggest, baddest free trade law you want. Just who was going to buy goods and materials to bring jobs to 15 million unemployed Americans?
Can't be done. Whereas massive Kenysian stimulus not only can be done, but was proven to work with the New Deal - which put 4 million Americans back to work in 4 months through direct hiring programs - and World War II. High marginal tax rates. Direct hire. It works.
Randian voodoo economics? Not only has it never worked, it's only resulted in skyrocketing income disparity and misery for the poor and working class.
It's no different at all. Stallman is parading around "Freedom" as all software being open source. Which means that for Stallman's "Freedom" to exist, all software must be open source. Which means that developers aren't free to release products however they want if we're going to have this "Freedom".
Just because Stallman isn't calling for new copyright laws that enforce GPLv3 as the means, doesn't change the fact that that is the end that he wants.
You are poutraged. Since you ignored it, here it is a second time:
Jobs was instrumental in the development of the personal computer and powerful, easy to use smartphones and PDA's. You could say the industry would have gone in the same directions with or without Jobs - but you could say the same thing for Turing.
Turing was at the forefront of the development of electronic computing. Jobs was at the forefront of the development of personal computers and making tablets and smartphones that don't suck.
They were both hugely influential in blatantly obvious - though different - ways. And if you would put down the Pouterade for two seconds, it would be obvious to you too.
Oh sure. Remember Taco's "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." on the release of the first iPod.
"Caving" implies that Obama keeps giving in to the opposition, when he's made it very, very, very clear by now that he agrees with the "opposition". All you have to do is ignore the words coming out of his mouth and look at what he chooses to do.
So it's not caving. It's taking a dive.
Actually, the site was pretty much the same 10 years ago.
But patents != trademarks, and Apple hasn't been a total patent troll with their library. With a possible exception of their current court fight with Samsung et all, but IANAPL. I hope the mobile phone market doesn't end up like the graphic software market a few years ago, where Macromedia and Adobe would sue each other every six months or so.....
That's just lazy - "here, go read this book and prove my position for me!". Since you didn't actually address my post, I'll repeat it:
Then explain why Apple dominates the MP3 player and tablet markets, instead of going out of business. Don't bother with the marketing canard, as if other tech companies are prevented from hiring Madison Avenue.
Sounds more like Jobs didn't give a shit about what you want. And he probably would have been the first one to tell you to go right ahead and buy what you do want, no skin off Apple's nose.
Do you freaking know how to read? Since you skipped it the first time:
I know perfectly well who Alan Turing was: an instrumental player in the development of electronic computing. As Jobs was instrumental in the development of the personal computer and powerful, easy to use smartphones and PDA's. You could say the industry would have gone in the same directions with or without Jobs - but you could say the same thing for Turing. So, one more time if the upper part of your monitor is still covered in spittle:
Or, maybe just realize that entrepreneur != inventor, and vice versa.
Right, so you didn't bother to actually read what was quoted, which blows a hole in the timeline that the FBI constructed for the case.