Except that it would have actually taken out just about any modern, steel structure. Post-9/11 testing has pretty conclussively proven the effects were far, far worse than was widely reported at the time; which in turn empowered the stupidity which was the 9/11 truthers.
Exactly. Nobody ever ever ran a 727 into a building to test this out. Further, the buildings DID withstand a hit by a fully loaded plane much bigger than a 727 flying a just about its maximum speed.
The towers succumbed to fire, not the aircraft hit.
There's a big psychological difference behind the attitude towards passengers of the average screener empowered by the federal government and one empowered by the local airport.
Maybe psychological is the extent of the difference.
These goons will be less well trained, have fewer background checks, and just as legally protected from lawsuit as the current goons. They will end up working under the same federal guidelines and regulations.
There seems to be at best, a distinction without any real assurance of a difference.
1. I'm assuming there hasn't been too much radical human evolution since 1996. 2. Considering that modern devices likely emit lower levels of radiation simply to save battery life compared to the bricks of '96, I doubt that you are getting cooked by your iPhone in any worse way than by your grandpa's Startac.
Grandpa!?? Listen, sonny, I represent that statement!!
My first cell was the MicroTac, which predated both the StarTac and the FCC radiation standards by almost 10 years. This thing would fry your ear with heat on a call of any duration. Their anemic batteries pretty much limited duration to a medium broil.
Further, any effects of radiation from those old school phones should have been seen by now. The NRC states that
The effects of low doses of radiation, if any, would occur at the cell level, and thus changes may not be observed for many years (usually 5-20 years) after exposure.
And they are talking about ionizing radiation, not simple radio waves.
Contrary to the Summary's assertion that "there is not yet a general consensus on whether there is a real danger from mobile device radiation", there is simply no longer any debate, as every study finding even a remote statistical link has been deeply flawed, and pretty well debunked. Even the formerly hand wringing article over at Wikipedia has been forced to admit there is just no evidence. The historical/hysterical versions of that article were pretty comical at times.
Years and years waiting for a decent version of skype for linux drove me to other solutions. I no longer use skype for anything.
Still I'm utterly astounded that it took Microsoft ownership to finally pry a halfway decent and up to date version from the developers. I presume all the wiretap hooks are now in place, now that all the calls are routed thru Microsoft's servers, and the CLEA people are happy?
Obsolete is a far cry from immoral. Because the model is obsolete does not make it wrong.
But I disagree that "there never was a moral argument that they should be paid for each copy". Precisely that argument has been the cornerstone of copyright since the Constitution was written, or the British Statue of Anne. Its been the norm since the 1500s. "To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy."
And I'm all ears for any model that allows Artist/Author to profit from their work, and profit more when they produce a very popular work, and profit less when their work appeals to only a few.
I suspect that we are several major technological advances away from such a solution.
Not only do all the other dependancies have to be the right magic versions, but someone has to take the effort to port a rather complex piece of software. Luckily, the Linux folks don't have nearly the trouble as they're a tier 1 platform for most software these days. Still, there are many different choices in linux for near everything and getting your combination to work can be tiresome. Next time you download packages from any open source OS, consider how much work went into that easy experience. Saying thank you can't hurt either.:)
Too many moving targets. Too many artificial dependencies.
I've often found that dependencies are carelessly chosen, then enshrined into the RPMs, when in fact there is no real dependency on having the absolute latest version of some lib or some other package. The package builder or the developer happened to have version 1.35.34-1a installed even thought they USED nothing from that lib or package that was new or fixed since 1.26.0.
Consequently it becomes a mad dash for every maintainer to gather a snapshot in time of stable system from a zillion packages all being updated asynchronously.
OpenSUSE releases have a lifetime of 2 releases + 2 months overlap. With a release cycle of 8 months this makes it 18 months before any given release falls into obsolescence, becomes unmaintained. See http://en.opensuse.org/Lifetime
Add to this that OpenSuse was simply a test bed for Novell's commercial packages (SLES/SLED) and you have the perfect storm of rapid rolling obsolescence. Releases seem to become obsolete and unmaintained way too quickly.
I would enjoy annual releases. I would enjoy releases every two years even more. I could make a case for a release every three years with nothing but security patches and major fixes bug between.
But most of all I would love to see a release maintained for 3 to 5 years.
I love this distro, ad have been running it since version 5 or 7 or some such. But Running OpenSuse has become an exercise in chasing new releases every 18 months just to avoid obsolescence and security problems. 18 months is just too short.
But I'm not defending the music industry. Maybe that's why so many simply can't understand the problem, their hatred for the music labels has blinded them to all reason. They hate copyright because they hate the RIAA.
Look the situation would not be any different if the music industry disappeared over night. If all the artists made their own web sites, sold their music directly, went thru iTunes or Amazon or Google. The situation would be exactly the same.
Those who rail against copyright condemn all artists to only perform in person, because any digital reproduction of their performances is, in these people's eyes, fair game for all of society to reproduce at will.
If that is what society wants, that's fine. Lets go with that. You may not like what you get, but if you can convince the rest of the world the it is the right way, then elect people who will do that for you. Or run for office yourself.
Its a very small jump from "Any thought once spoken belongs to all mankind" to "Any dollar once earned belongs to all man kind".
I know exactly what I'm referring to, You, on the other hand seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
If the artist limited herself to performances only, and allowed no recording or video, she would be able to maintain the maximum in scarcity of her work. This is the historical norm. Artists have a natural monopoly. They are scarce.
Once a digital recording is made the artist loses ALL control of scarcity. Natural monopoly is shattered.
The only fall back is a legal monopoly. (Copyright).
If society is willing to strip away legal monopoly there will probably be far fewer recordings released, and personal appearances will again be the norm. Artists will release just enough recordings (for free) to assure that their venues are sold out.
One can argue that is a perfectly reasonable way to go, but it is not the way society has chosen.
Most robberies are morons who watched too many films and thought it was that easy.
Unfortunately it is in fact pretty easy. Probably easier in the US than in the UK. (small fish, bigger pond). But the take is much smaller.
With 20% chance of getting caught (in the UIK), and only two robberies needed per year to make a living wage, it would seem that anyone taking half a year to plan a job would stand nearly zero percent chance of getting caught, and would be able to time it such that their average take would be substantially higher than 19k. Parlay your experience into one robbery per calendar quarter and you might be able to live fairly well, as long as you move around the country.
In the US, oddly, the take per robbery is much smaller than the 19K mentioned in the British study. The average haul, $7,732 in 2009 and $7,663 in 2010.
Further, the chance of getting caught is much higher in the US. In fact, the clearance rate for bank robbery is among the highest of all crimes—nearly 60 percent.
However, it also appears that in the US only in 22% of cases is there actually any money recovered (see first link). This suggests that every robber they catch "clears" multiple bank robberies, but only after significant amounts of money is spent, which implies the average robber may well get away with it for some time before getting sloppy enough to get caught.
That you hate the idea, means nothing. Its still the law that society has adopted. If you don't like that, then work to change the law, so that any work, once created, belongs to all.
Oh, and go ahead and forward half your bank account to me. Thanks. And keep up the hard work.
Moderating is not a job. Its a randomly handed out optional task to normal users.
Unfortunately a significant number of these volunteer moderators use it as a Disagree/Agree scale rather than pay any attention to the content or reasoning in the post.
As to your arrogance of commenting on the IQ of an entire community based on the graffiti of the few, I'm not sure it does much to further the discussion, but it probably allows you to thump your chest a bit and feel all smug. Congratulations: You've "Won the Internet".
The multiplier keeps damages reasonably bound to the actual value of the "goods", but also makes it far cheaper to buy instead of pirate.
Not really. Its still cheaper to pirate. Price ZERO is still cheaper than price 99cents.
The receiver (the downloader) pays nothing now, and nothing under your plan. They received a "gift". Its virtually impossible to catch them as long as they avoid bit torrent re-seeding.
The supplier (the uploader or pirate server) pays nothing now, and maybe a few hundred dollars under your plan.
Even if you catch the uploader in the act, they are not going to tell you how many people they uploaded to. They will say I only saw one downloader. They sure aren't going to keep logs.
So you've fixed the maximum penalty at 10 times market cost for each seeder, regardless of how many times they distribute the item.
Artificial scarcity is morally wrong and economically harmful.
Business models that involve data should not be dependent on artificial scarcity.
We can revisit the old artificial-scarcity model when and if the predicted-but-never-demonstrated cultural impoverishment (a hypothesized result of a lack of new content which is a hypothesized result of a lack of financial incentive to create which is a hypothesized result of the inability to wring every last penny out of everyone that receives a copy of the data) actually happens (which it won't).
You have to ask yourself if the scarcity is in fact artificial.
There is only one Lady Gaga, and she can't be everywhere at once, and she is therefore by definition scarce.
Recording and mass marketing has made her un-scarce. She chose this route. She did so in order to maximize her profit, with the expectation that she might make some money. Not an unreasonable expectation.
When there were records (vinyl), artists and labels could press a short run, label them a collector's edition if they wanted, and controlled the number in production. Same for books. That too was a artificial scarcity of sorts. So was the 1937 Bugatti Type 57S Atalante Coupe, 17 made. They could have made any number.
Others could have copied the car, or the books or the records. But we, as a society, gave that right to the car company, the author, or the artist. Never mind WHY we did that. Those arguments are not germane, we did it, enshrined it in law, and it is what it is.
Digital music / ebooks / videos removed all capability for the artist to control the number of copies, and allows anyone, at will, to create any number of copies.
You can't, with any intellectual honesty, simply hand wave that away and claim a business model is morally wrong simply because it is suddenly possible to circumvent it in your parents' basement with an $800 computer.
Ford could have copied Bugatti. But the barriers to entry were high enough (an automotive assembly plant) to prevent that. Someone could have pressed a copy of the Beach Boys albums, or any best selling book. Again you had to have the expensive tools and you would risk getting caught with a warehouse full of counterfeit goods.
The computer removes all of that, and gives any 12 year old the ability to make perfect copies at zero cost.
Does that fact somehow trump the law, wash away the artist's rights, and make copying anything legal? Will 3D printing do the same for physical objects?
The concept of artificial scarcity is, itself, artificial: man made.
That's right, keep attacking the messenger instead of the message.
This is the internet, not a college term paper. On the internet, we overlook minor typos, misspellings, awkward sentence structure, and Anonymous Cowards.
Now, I doubt that the problem with affordable education is simply a shifting of funding from the state to the individual
I'm not so sure.
Just looking at round bald numbers from the ten year interval of 1999 to 2009 you can see that Student Tuition at Central Michigan has grown 2.6 times, while the total budget has only grown 1.7 times. And state funding has held steady over those years.
Bottom line Figures for 1999 show Tuition totaling $79,762,133. Bottom Line Figures for 2009 show Tuition totaling $214,308,670 Tuition grew to 2.6 times the 1999 values.
State Funding was $79,796,415 in 1999 and $80,064,200 in 2009, a virtual wash. Total revenue was $227,472,170 in 1999 and $397,036,721 in 2009 or 1.7 times.
This is without regard to the total number of students, but the fact that Tuition increase of 2.6 times matches so closely the Cost Per Credit hour growth of 2.6 would suggest that the enrollment was not dramatically higher, and this is born out Here where 2002 undergrad enrollment was 17k, and 2011 enrollment was 19k.
(Total compensation (wages) increased by 1.6 times over that interval. It seems the revenue isn't all flowing into faculty pockets)
So Without becoming a CPA, and chasing every penny, its clear that the student out of pocket expenses have grown at a rate vastly higher than the University budget as a whole. The vast majority of the expansion in the budget is from tuition.
The cost of the of a college education has expanded to absorb the available student loan money.
Now if only you'd stopped dropping me off the Internet every five minutes during the weekend I'd probably recommend your service, if you provided a decent, non-laggy DNS server I'd even praise you from time to time.
Keep bitching to them. My service almost never goes down. And stop using their DNS. Google's 8.8.8.8 is free and fast.
Just like college tuition. The easier it is to fund an education the more expensive it gets.
I was going to go there, but the last time I did on Slashdot I was immediately pounced on and pummeled by people who work for universities and colleges. Apparently I had gored some sacred ox.
Finding any historical cost per credit hour data was fairly hard, schools don't really want you to see this. I finally found some for the University of Nebraska, Kearney, a state funded school, where a 2011-12 credit hour costs $168. Back in 1964-5 this cost was 9 bucks per credit hour.
Using the Dollar Times calculator $9.00 in 1964 had the same buying power as $65.73 in 2012. So, instead of charging $65.73/ch, UNK is now charging$168, or 2.5 time the inflation equivalent per credit hour.
Kearney isn't alone in this, Central Michigan is actually worse. They charged $85.50/ch in 1993, which had the same buying power as $135.98 in 2012, but they are charging $358/ch or 2.6 times inflation.
Admittedly, state funding levels may have changed, and more money may now be raised by tuition and fees with less tax dollar input. Its hard to know, without digging thru the University budgets over the years.
But in any event, I suspect that you are correct, that the cost of college expands to absorb the available funds.
There is a lot of merit to the bucket idea, where multiple devices can draw from the same data allotment. Lots of us have cell phones and tablets, (or would like to). Or we live in household with a a couple low-data users.
If nothing else,it puts the policing of high-data use into the group, and brings peer pressure into picture when you actually share a plan in such households.
But for the individual user with two devices, 90 bucks for one gig, and then having the bill jacked up simply because there is another device on the line is getting crazy expensive.
It seems like carrier pricing is getting out of hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Swoosh !
Except that it would have actually taken out just about any modern, steel structure. Post-9/11 testing has pretty conclussively proven the effects were far, far worse than was widely reported at the time; which in turn empowered the stupidity which was the 9/11 truthers.
Exactly. Nobody ever ever ran a 727 into a building to test this out.
Further, the buildings DID withstand a hit by a fully loaded plane much bigger than a 727 flying a just about its maximum speed.
The towers succumbed to fire, not the aircraft hit.
I suggest all the thermite you speak of is merely dripping sweat from the brim of your tin foil hat.
Yeah you can sue a private screener.
Says who?
You watch, Federal regulations will end up giving these guys immunity in exactly the same way the TSA has immunity.
There's a big psychological difference behind the attitude towards passengers of the average screener empowered by the federal government and one empowered by the local airport.
Maybe psychological is the extent of the difference.
These goons will be less well trained, have fewer background checks, and just as legally protected from lawsuit as the current goons.
They will end up working under the same federal guidelines and regulations.
There seems to be at best, a distinction without any real assurance of a difference.
1. I'm assuming there hasn't been too much radical human evolution since 1996.
2. Considering that modern devices likely emit lower levels of radiation simply to save battery life compared to the bricks of '96, I doubt that you are getting cooked by your iPhone in any worse way than by your grandpa's Startac.
Grandpa!?? Listen, sonny, I represent that statement!!
My first cell was the MicroTac, which predated both the StarTac and the FCC radiation standards by almost 10 years. This thing would fry your ear with heat on a call of any duration. Their anemic batteries pretty much limited duration to a medium broil.
Further, any effects of radiation from those old school phones should have been seen by now. The NRC states that
The effects of low doses of radiation, if any, would occur at the cell level, and thus changes may not be observed for many years (usually 5-20 years) after exposure.
And they are talking about ionizing radiation, not simple radio waves.
Contrary to the Summary's assertion that "there is not yet a general consensus on whether there is a real danger from mobile device radiation", there is simply no longer any debate, as every study finding even a remote statistical link has been deeply flawed, and pretty well debunked. Even the formerly hand wringing article over at Wikipedia has been forced to admit there is just no evidence. The historical/hysterical versions of that article were pretty comical at times.
I read as far as me "claim that technological progress should be halted " and realized you are an idiot with zero reading comprehension.
How in gods name did you come up with that?
Years and years waiting for a decent version of skype for linux drove me to other solutions.
I no longer use skype for anything.
Still I'm utterly astounded that it took Microsoft ownership to finally pry a halfway decent and up to date version from the developers. I presume all the wiretap hooks are now in place, now that all the calls are routed thru Microsoft's servers, and the CLEA people are happy?
Son, the Reality of the world and of nature is Might makes Right, kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.
Law is mans way of bringing order to this reality.
You can feel free to ignore the law at your own peril. Without the law, your life would be
miserable, short, and end violently.
Obsolete is a far cry from immoral. Because the model is obsolete does not make it wrong.
But I disagree that "there never was a moral argument that they should be paid for each copy". Precisely that argument has been the cornerstone of copyright since the Constitution was written, or the British Statue of Anne. Its been the norm since the 1500s. "To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy."
And I'm all ears for any model that allows Artist/Author to profit from their work, and profit more when they produce a very popular work, and profit less when their work appeals to only a few.
I suspect that we are several major technological advances away from such a solution.
Not only do all the other dependancies have to be the right magic versions, but someone has to take the effort to port a rather complex piece of software. Luckily, the Linux folks don't have nearly the trouble as they're a tier 1 platform for most software these days. Still, there are many different choices in linux for near everything and getting your combination to work can be tiresome. Next time you download packages from any open source OS, consider how much work went into that easy experience. Saying thank you can't hurt either. :)
Too many moving targets. Too many artificial dependencies.
I've often found that dependencies are carelessly chosen, then enshrined into the RPMs, when in fact there is no real dependency on having the absolute latest version of some lib or some other package. The package builder or the developer happened to have version 1.35.34-1a installed even thought they USED nothing from that lib or package that was new or fixed since 1.26.0.
Consequently it becomes a mad dash for every maintainer to gather a snapshot in time of stable system from a zillion packages all being updated asynchronously.
OpenSUSE releases have a lifetime of 2 releases + 2 months overlap. With a release cycle of 8 months this makes it 18 months before any given release falls into obsolescence, becomes unmaintained. See http://en.opensuse.org/Lifetime
Add to this that OpenSuse was simply a test bed for Novell's commercial packages (SLES/SLED) and you have the perfect storm of rapid rolling obsolescence. Releases seem to become obsolete and unmaintained way too quickly.
I would enjoy annual releases. I would enjoy releases every two years even more. I could make a case for a release every three years with nothing but security patches and major fixes bug between.
But most of all I would love to see a release maintained for 3 to 5 years.
I love this distro, ad have been running it since version 5 or 7 or some such. But Running OpenSuse has become an exercise in chasing new releases every 18 months just to avoid obsolescence and security problems. 18 months is just too short.
You make a good point.
But I'm not defending the music industry. Maybe that's why so many simply can't understand the problem, their hatred for the music labels has blinded them to all reason. They hate copyright because they hate the RIAA.
Look the situation would not be any different if the music industry disappeared over night. If all the artists made their own web sites, sold their music directly, went thru iTunes or Amazon or Google. The situation would be exactly the same.
Those who rail against copyright condemn all artists to only perform in person, because any digital reproduction of their performances is, in these people's eyes, fair game for all of society to reproduce at will.
If that is what society wants, that's fine. Lets go with that. You may not like what you get, but if you can convince the rest of the world the it is the right way, then elect people who will do that for you. Or run for office yourself.
Its a very small jump from "Any thought once spoken belongs to all mankind" to "Any dollar once earned belongs to all man kind".
Does the law trump reality?
In general, yes. One can argue it is the natural purpose of law.
I know exactly what I'm referring to, You, on the other hand seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
If the artist limited herself to performances only, and allowed no recording or video, she would be able to maintain the maximum in scarcity of her work. This is the historical norm. Artists have a natural monopoly. They are scarce.
Once a digital recording is made the artist loses ALL control of scarcity. Natural monopoly is shattered.
The only fall back is a legal monopoly. (Copyright).
If society is willing to strip away legal monopoly there will probably be far fewer recordings released, and personal appearances will again be the norm. Artists will release just enough recordings (for free) to assure that their venues are sold out.
One can argue that is a perfectly reasonable way to go, but it is not the way society has chosen.
Most robberies are morons who watched too many films and thought it was that easy.
Unfortunately it is in fact pretty easy. Probably easier in the US than in the UK. (small fish, bigger pond). But the take is much smaller.
With 20% chance of getting caught (in the UIK), and only two robberies needed per year to make a living wage, it would seem that anyone taking half a year to plan a job would stand nearly zero percent chance of getting caught, and would be able to time it such that their average take would be substantially higher than 19k. Parlay your experience into one robbery per calendar quarter and you might be able to live fairly well, as long as you move around the country.
In the US, oddly, the take per robbery is much smaller than the 19K mentioned in the British study. The average haul, $7,732 in 2009 and $7,663 in 2010.
Further, the chance of getting caught is much higher in the US. In fact, the clearance rate for bank robbery is among the highest of all crimes—nearly 60 percent.
However, it also appears that in the US only in 22% of cases is there actually any money recovered (see first link). This suggests that every robber they catch "clears" multiple bank robberies, but only after significant amounts of money is spent, which implies the average robber may well get away with it for some time before getting sloppy enough to get caught.
A lot of interesting info is at the Center for Problem Oriented Policing site: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_banks/print/
That you hate the idea, means nothing. Its still the law that society has adopted.
If you don't like that, then work to change the law, so that any work, once created, belongs to all.
Oh, and go ahead and forward half your bank account to me. Thanks. And keep up the hard work.
You must be new here.
Moderating is not a job. Its a randomly handed out optional task to normal users.
Unfortunately a significant number of these volunteer moderators use it as a Disagree/Agree scale rather than
pay any attention to the content or reasoning in the post.
As to your arrogance of commenting on the IQ of an entire community based on the graffiti of the few, I'm not sure it does much to further the discussion, but it probably allows you to thump your chest a bit and feel all smug. Congratulations: You've "Won the Internet".
The multiplier keeps damages reasonably bound to the actual value of the "goods", but also makes it far cheaper to buy instead of pirate.
Not really. Its still cheaper to pirate. Price ZERO is still cheaper than price 99cents.
The receiver (the downloader) pays nothing now, and nothing under your plan. They received a "gift". Its virtually
impossible to catch them as long as they avoid bit torrent re-seeding.
The supplier (the uploader or pirate server) pays nothing now, and maybe a few hundred dollars under your plan.
Even if you catch the uploader in the act, they are not going to tell you how many people they uploaded to. They will say
I only saw one downloader. They sure aren't going to keep logs.
So you've fixed the maximum penalty at 10 times market cost for each seeder, regardless of how many times
they distribute the item.
Artificial scarcity is morally wrong and economically harmful.
Business models that involve data should not be dependent on artificial scarcity.
We can revisit the old artificial-scarcity model when and if the predicted-but-never-demonstrated cultural impoverishment (a hypothesized result of a lack of new content which is a hypothesized result of a lack of financial incentive to create which is a hypothesized result of the inability to wring every last penny out of everyone that receives a copy of the data) actually happens (which it won't).
You have to ask yourself if the scarcity is in fact artificial.
There is only one Lady Gaga, and she can't be everywhere at once, and she is therefore by definition scarce.
Recording and mass marketing has made her un-scarce. She chose this route. She did so in order to maximize her
profit, with the expectation that she might make some money. Not an unreasonable expectation.
When there were records (vinyl), artists and labels could press a short run, label them a collector's edition if they wanted, and
controlled the number in production. Same for books. That too was a artificial scarcity of sorts.
So was the 1937 Bugatti Type 57S Atalante Coupe, 17 made. They could have made any number.
Others could have copied the car, or the books or the records. But we, as a society, gave that right
to the car company, the author, or the artist. Never mind WHY we did that. Those arguments are not
germane, we did it, enshrined it in law, and it is what it is.
Digital music / ebooks / videos removed all capability for the artist to control the number of copies, and allows
anyone, at will, to create any number of copies.
You can't, with any intellectual honesty, simply hand wave that away and claim a business model is morally
wrong simply because it is suddenly possible to circumvent it in your parents' basement with an $800 computer.
Ford could have copied Bugatti. But the barriers to entry were high enough (an automotive assembly plant) to prevent that.
Someone could have pressed a copy of the Beach Boys albums, or any best selling book. Again you had to have the
expensive tools and you would risk getting caught with a warehouse full of counterfeit goods.
The computer removes all of that, and gives any 12 year old the ability to make perfect copies at zero cost.
Does that fact somehow trump the law, wash away the artist's rights, and make copying anything legal?
Will 3D printing do the same for physical objects?
The concept of artificial scarcity is, itself, artificial: man made.
That's right, keep attacking the messenger instead of the message.
This is the internet, not a college term paper. On the internet, we overlook minor typos, misspellings, awkward sentence structure, and Anonymous Cowards.
Now, I doubt that the problem with affordable education is simply a shifting of funding from the state to the individual
I'm not so sure.
Just looking at round bald numbers from the ten year interval of 1999 to 2009 you can see that Student Tuition at Central Michigan has grown 2.6 times, while the total budget has only grown 1.7 times. And state funding has held steady over those years.
Bottom line Figures for 1999 show Tuition totaling $79,762,133.
Bottom Line Figures for 2009 show Tuition totaling $214,308,670
Tuition grew to 2.6 times the 1999 values.
State Funding was $79,796,415 in 1999 and $80,064,200 in 2009, a virtual wash.
Total revenue was $227,472,170 in 1999 and $397,036,721 in 2009 or 1.7 times.
This is without regard to the total number of students, but the fact that Tuition increase of 2.6 times matches so closely the Cost Per Credit hour growth of 2.6
would suggest that the enrollment was not dramatically higher, and this is born out Here where 2002 undergrad enrollment was 17k, and 2011 enrollment was 19k.
(Total compensation (wages) increased by 1.6 times over that interval. It seems the revenue isn't all flowing into faculty pockets)
So Without becoming a CPA, and chasing every penny, its clear that the student out of pocket expenses have grown at a rate vastly higher than the University budget as a whole. The vast majority of the expansion in the budget is from tuition.
The cost of the of a college education has expanded to absorb the available student loan money.
You only need technicians involved if you are small potatoes.
If you have to fish thru logs you are doing it wrong.
Any really large organization can automate this, by placing the data in a database, and get the the incremental cost down pennies.
Now if only you'd stopped dropping me off the Internet every five minutes during the weekend I'd probably recommend your service, if you provided a decent, non-laggy DNS server I'd even praise you from time to time.
Keep bitching to them. My service almost never goes down.
And stop using their DNS. Google's 8.8.8.8 is free and fast.
Just like college tuition. The easier it is to fund an education the more expensive it gets.
I was going to go there, but the last time I did on Slashdot I was immediately pounced on and pummeled by people who work for universities and colleges. Apparently I had gored some sacred ox.
Finding any historical cost per credit hour data was fairly hard, schools don't really want you to see this.
I finally found some for the University of Nebraska, Kearney, a state funded school, where a 2011-12 credit hour costs $168. Back in 1964-5 this cost was 9 bucks per credit hour.
Using the Dollar Times calculator $9.00 in 1964 had the same buying power as $65.73 in 2012. So, instead of charging $65.73/ch, UNK is now charging$168, or 2.5 time the inflation equivalent per credit hour.
Kearney isn't alone in this, Central Michigan is actually worse.
They charged $85.50/ch in 1993, which had the same buying power as $135.98 in 2012, but they are charging $358/ch or 2.6 times inflation.
Admittedly, state funding levels may have changed, and more money may now be raised by tuition and fees with less tax dollar input.
Its hard to know, without digging thru the University budgets over the years.
But in any event, I suspect that you are correct, that the cost of college expands to absorb the available funds.
There is a lot of merit to the bucket idea, where multiple devices can draw from the same data allotment.
Lots of us have cell phones and tablets, (or would like to). Or we live in household with a a couple low-data users.
If nothing else,it puts the policing of high-data use into the group, and brings peer pressure into picture
when you actually share a plan in such households.
But for the individual user with two devices, 90 bucks for one gig, and then having the bill jacked up simply because there is another device
on the line is getting crazy expensive.
It seems like carrier pricing is getting out of hand.