Care to point us to some place that can veryify that fact? I know when i buy a car here in pa, the tax will be 6%. I don't see where the other 44% is coming from.
Can you really imagine going to the movies as a family without munchies? When I was a kid movies were a "treat" and usually included the mammoth family popcorn tub, drinks (sometimes shared), and a candy bar.
Ya i can. Go to dinner first, then the movie. It will probably be cheaper in the long run too.
Now you can't get those family popcorn tubs, even though prices have skyrocketed. You can't get a standard size candy bar, only the oversize packs. You pay more for a 20oz watery soda with too much ice than for 2-3 large bottles at 7-11, much less a grocery store.
Which is why people aren't buying it, and regal is going under, since thats where they make all their money.
Despite that obscene gouging, I cannot imagine being so tight-fisted that I wouldn't buy the kids in the group the same as I got as a child. I'm not saying you need to give in to the whining for more candy when it's gone, but it just wouldn't be right to eliminate it. Even at home I usually nuke a bag of popcorn when I sit down to watch a flick on DVD!
Well you don't have a problem with it; the poster i was responding to was complaining how expensive it is to get the treats at the theater, and implied that he HAD to buy it for them.
As far as being tight-fisted goes, the poster was complaining how expensive it is to take his family and get everthing, and i'm sure it is.
At any rate, people have to decide for themselves which is more important: giving thier kids the exact same experience or deciding the economics of it really isn't feasible.
Here's a thought though. while the memories might be nice, maybe people should stop blaming thier genes for being overweight, and skip the popcorn and soda and have a healthy meal at home before going to the movies. Maybe we wouldn't have a 60% obesitity rate then..
Anyone with kids is hopelessly punished by the ticket prices, not to mention the confectionary stand. (Suuuure you can convince the kids to skip that $2 medium drink and those $3.50 candies!)
Bull. Tell them no, stay firm. If they insist, talk to the manager to get your money back and don't take them to the movies anymore.
I'm sick of people w/kids saying they have no control over them. You don't have to listen to your kids, no matter how annoying they might be.
The convicted party has more rights than the victims (in this case everyone). This is wholly unfair!
While i agree that MS should be getting punished and its not, i don't think that victims should have any more rights then the convicted (or your normal citizen). Everyone has the same rights, period.
Of course the auto companies would steal the idea of there was no legislation protecting the inventor.
Well he was claiming another 'inventor' would use the idea and profit from it. My arguement was that no one would profit from it with the absence of law.
the absence of copyright law encourages theft.
Copyright law won't help in this case; perhaps you mean patents?
At any rate, its not theft. You can't steal an idea. Things that can be duplicated freely and without cost are by definition not worth anything.
Now, of course the argument is that the inventor (or writer, or whathaveyou), has a right to be profit from his discovery; this is not the case. Ideas belong to anyone willing to listen. The only way you have 'theft' (which is not really theft, its IP infringment) is by artifically calling it that by force of law.
The reason we have IP law is to encourage developers of ideas to create ideas, so that they may profit for a short time, but then the idea is free for the world to use. The inventor gets something, and so does society. And society is what, in the end, we are trying to elevate.
Consider someone who has developed an idea to improve auto gas mileage by 100 percent. He publishes that idea. However, because of a total lack of copyright protection, someone else picks up that publication, re-publishes it under his own name, and strikes a deal with the auto manufacturers that brings him millions of dollars in royalties and payments. The actual originator is left high and dry.
Um, that particular case doesn't hold water. Why would the auto makers pay royalties when they could just steal the idea themselves?
I doubt the automakers would profit from this anyway, since ALL of them could take the idea and implment it. They'd be saying 'buy our car b/c we have a windshield' Ya..
...a cogent case can be made that some of the people downloading that copy would otherwise have purchased it. That deprives people of revenue they would otherwise receive.
See, thats the part that i always like to challenge. I'd be interested to see hard facts stating what percentage of people WOULD buy the cd if that were the only way to listen to it (besides the radio of course).
I'm willing to bet the percentage is quite low. Certainly thats the case with everyone i know. They download the music they would not pay for otherwise; they do however, buy music they like alot.
I'm not sure this is the case all the time either. Here's an example:
Someone is released from jail, for armed robbery lets say. The prison system in this case worked, and he now realizes the error of his ways. He wants to make the best of his second chance. However, since the town he commited the crime is may not be as forgiving as it should be, he decides to start over across the country.
Modern technology may allow residents in his new town to easily find out about his jail term. Like most people today, they think 'once a criminal, always a criminal' and proceed to harrase him or try to block him from living there altogether.
Basically, he has a 'scarlet letter.' Personally, something bothers me with a 'one strike you're out' attitude, which is essentially what this is.
But back to the original debate. Perhaps it is wrong to take a paper public record and make it available to the world electronically via the internet. In theory anyone could go to the court of public records of our ex-felons town and find out, but its doubtful anyone would bother going cross country to do so. However, with the record on the internet, anyone can find it in seconds.
7 was never mentioned in the Constitution. It was the first implementation by Congress.
Thanks for clarifying that. I double checking and you are correct. I also find some reasoning behind the Bono Extention...b/c people were living longer. Um, ya...
So you might say "people" own works get 70 years protection, while corporate owned ones get 7. But, there are a multitude of contractual ways to convert one into the other. Companies will end up with everything the individual owns, one way or another.
I'd hope not. Personally i don't see why many authors transfer ownership of copyright. It doesn't seem necessary.
Frankly, the issue here is way beyond copyright. It is proof positive that the US Government is no longer acting "by, for, or of the people". It no longer represents the country at large, but rather highly suspect, unseen, and unaccountable interests.
This article has a theory about that. It actually makes alot of sense.
Now -- With who's "one voice" is the President claiming his right to invade Iraq? Who gave him that -- and by what authority if it wasn't the people of the US?
Certainly not mine. War is the last thing i want right now. Bush doesn't seem to know what he's doing.
You ignore the simple fact that not many people will try to create something that they can't make money off of. Why would any movie studio make a movie if they can't copyright it for some time at least?
So i'll disagree with you here. The problem isn't copyright, its the lenght of the copyright. Seven years is more then enough time to make your profit, i'd think. I also think it would encourage MORE works; which is the intent, after all.
Think it's hard now....think down the DRM road where the access is controlled "per-play" rather than "I have the album"....as soon as the consumer looses the right to "hold the album/rights to listen".....it's all over....
For me it will be over. Simply put, i don't care enough to spend much money to watch or listen to copyrighted materials. Music i can live without already, most of it is crap. Movies i love, but i'll get over it. I'll just spend more time bar hopping or playing pool or whatever.
Think about it, that's where EULA's have been going with "revokable liscense agreements" and the rest of it. You no longer have the ability to keep using something that you bought, even if you still have the media.....time expired!
Ya EULA's can kiss my ass. The fact that the terms of it ARE NOT available until after the purchase voids them. Some notice saying 'there's a contract inside' doesn't cut it either. Unless i am presented with the EULA at time of purchse and agree then to it (by signing something) i didn't agree to it. Simply reading or making a hand gesture doesn't mean i've agreed to it.
If some idiot judge thinks it does...well i'll post a large sign on my property that says 'by reading this you agree to pay me $500' and a camera to help for enforcement.
I know you are trying to present valid arguements, but I hear a whiny teenager saying things like "But I don't want to work, I'll never have time to party", and "You mean I have to live with my parents for another four years? I can't take it!"
Well hear what you will.
So please look at what i actually said. Notice the word 'party' didn't appear anywhere. Also notice you took two of my arguements and read into them something that wasn't there while ignoring the others.
So do you consider going to class and doing the assignements that go along with it work? I certainly do. There were many times where the amount of work you have from college does take up all your free time. There were many quarters were i spent every waking moment in a lab or in a class room. ALL my meals were gotten from a vending machine. I would not have been able to do as well if i had to work during those times. Thats the bottom line.
As far as moving out of your parents goes, perhaps living with them is not a viable option for a lot of people. For me, the nearest college was 30 minutes away. Automattically that means that, unless i get my degree from a community college (which are known for being ridiculously easy to get into), i would have to move out at some point. Just about every college requires freshmen (and increasingly, sophmores) to reside on campus unless they live less then a few miles away (if i remember correctly, it was usually 15 miles).
Seriously, how much of that is just wanting to get away from your parents and do stupid, crazy stuff? How much of that has anything to do with actual education?
I can only speak for myself, not others. Personally i didn't want to leave home. Especially going as far as i did. In the end it was better for me. As far as doing crazy stuff goes...
Well if by crazy you mean staying up until 1am and playing quake, then i guess i was crazy. I got my work done, and i didn't have to be up until 8 usually the next day. Or if i did have to be up earlier, i wasn't up till 1am the night before. Hell i never had a drop of alcohol until 4 months before i graduated! I'm not going to say i never had any fun; i certainly did. But i didn't move away for that purpose. It was a combination of finding a good school, and my mom's desire for me to 'see whats outside of my home' that finalized my choice. I think its said that there are people from my hometown that still have never left. They probably never will. At any rate, you never went full time to college, so i guess you'll never find out just how much of it is 'actual education.'
but I my level of debt is such that I could still make my payments if I were making half as much as I am now, so I don't consider my debt to be excessive.... I never said having debt was dumb, I said being buried in debt was dumb. You're the one who decided that was an all-or-nothing deal.
Forgive me if i'm misunderstanding, but by what you're saying you believe i have excessive debt. If i made half, i probably would have to make changes just to make payments on debt and cover living expenses. I have almost no savings. Yet i certainly didn't blow it living things up; in a little less then a year and a half, i have paid back 1/3 of my college loans. This is the wise thing to do i believe, since in the end i will have a) removed my only real debt and b) will have paid much less then if i took 10 years to pay it back.
Well, being a white male who is paying his own way through college while also supporting a family, I have to say "cry me a fucking river".
Why do people that support a family think they have a harder time then anyone else? They seem to think that everyone else should have compasion for them, but they never do for anyone else. Well anyone else that doesn't have a family.
Which brings me to another question. You said youi could lose half your income and still be ok, but what if you lost your wifes income completely. God forbid she dies or is an accident where she can no longer work. Would you still be ok? How about if at the same time you had to take the minimum wage job? Think you could be buried in debt then?
But fortunatly those things will never happen, b/c fate has nothing to do with it.
I suppose it was my own fault that someone else was tailgating another car and then hit mine while i was stopped.
So now you've switched from college debt to excessive college debt? I think you should be more clear in the future.
While your suggestions may be practical for some people, i'm sure they are not for others.
Its true that a JC may give a better education then a more prestigious collge would, going to a noname school probably won't help you as much when you gradute. In some cases, the prestigious college may also actually be the best.
As for scholarships; yes they are available. Unless you're a white male. Sort of out of luck them. Believe me i looked. This thing happens in other areas too, not just scholarships. Academically i was in the top 10% of my class. But that wasn't good enough to qualify me for anything. I'm glad your sister was able to compete in a beauty pagent for one, but that particular option is pretty limited. In the end i got a need based scholarship from my college.
Yes you can work during college. It can be difficult though. Getting the education is secondary to any job you might have; at least it probably will have to be if you want to do well in college. In my case, i worked for food, gas (when i was not living on campus) and extra spending money. I don't think its reasonable to ask anyone to be all work and no play, at least not for extended periods of time.
You can live at home and go to college. But that limits your choice of college greatly. You also miss out on the social part of college. There is alot of learning that goes on in college that does not take place in the classroom. I'm sure anyone that has gone a good distance for college will atest to that. A good distance being one where you only come home for the holidays, and maybe a few weekends.
There may also be problems with taking courses at a community college and transfering them. It seems that today less and less credits are transferable between colleges. It may also complicate financial aid, and can make scheduling more difficult, especially if one is working while taking classes.
Now i'm not saying that your suggestions are impossible or not worth pursuing. They certainly worked for your sister, but i doubt everyones situation will match your sisters. Some or all might be more difficult to implement, or just not possible.
So what exactly is your idea of excessive debt from college? Is it coincidence or on purpose that your sisters debt you seem to imply is not excessive. FYI, my college debt ended up to be ~$30k, with my mom having her own loans for it (she won't tell me how much).
However, I wasn't talking about people who went to school and actually got an education.
But hey, getting buried in debt is just plain dumb anyway, college education or not.
So how do you get a GOOD college education without ending up in debt? Save?? ya. Have your parents pay for it? Well thats nice but most people can't rely on thier parents to do so.
You seem to acknowledge that you need an education to get a decent job, but then you turn around and say even college debt is dumb. So what are people supposed to do?
I've encountered plenty of people that only had 'real' experience. They get the job done, yes, but their code is sloppy as hell. Client asks for a minor change, and the program is fucked. A little theory could have guided them to a better design. Your circuits may work, but they are probably poorly designed.
Bottom line is that both theory and real world skills are important. I was fortunate enough that my college offered by (real skill by way of coop).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, moving a block of colored pixels over a square of colored pixels and then clicking a mouse button is legally binding.
Sorry, i dont buy that shit.
that highway will last 10-15 years
What dream land do you live in? In PA, ONE good winter will destroy even newly repaved roads. In other places, it seems to about ~5 years.
Except its not a security measure to enforce copyright, so no, its not a violation of the DMCA.
Um, try unplugging (not just turning off) your cable modem. It will 'forget' the mac address, and you'll get an IP again.
The only place that actually remembered your IP was my college, and they tied your mac address to your DCE account.
Then you hurt 'the little inventor' b/c he can't afford to patent. While there may not be many left, i'm sure there are some out there.
Care to point us to some place that can veryify that fact? I know when i buy a car here in pa, the tax will be 6%. I don't see where the other 44% is coming from.
Can you really imagine going to the movies as a family without munchies? When I was a kid movies were a "treat" and usually included the mammoth family popcorn tub, drinks (sometimes shared), and a candy bar.
Ya i can. Go to dinner first, then the movie. It will probably be cheaper in the long run too.
Now you can't get those family popcorn tubs, even though prices have skyrocketed. You can't get a standard size candy bar, only the oversize packs. You pay more for a 20oz watery soda with too much ice than for 2-3 large bottles at 7-11, much less a grocery store.
Which is why people aren't buying it, and regal is going under, since thats where they make all their money.
Despite that obscene gouging, I cannot imagine being so tight-fisted that I wouldn't buy the kids in the group the same as I got as a child. I'm not saying you need to give in to the whining for more candy when it's gone, but it just wouldn't be right to eliminate it. Even at home I usually nuke a bag of popcorn when I sit down to watch a flick on DVD!
Well you don't have a problem with it; the poster i was responding to was complaining how expensive it is to get the treats at the theater, and implied that he HAD to buy it for them.
As far as being tight-fisted goes, the poster was complaining how expensive it is to take his family and get everthing, and i'm sure it is.
At any rate, people have to decide for themselves which is more important: giving thier kids the exact same experience or deciding the economics of it really isn't feasible.
Here's a thought though. while the memories might be nice, maybe people should stop blaming thier genes for being overweight, and skip the popcorn and soda and have a healthy meal at home before going to the movies. Maybe we wouldn't have a 60% obesitity rate then..
Secondly MS haven't been convicted of anything, or even charged with any crime, which is a necessary first step.
Um, from what i remember reading, they were a) found to be a monopoly and b) have illegally abused that monopoly power.
Not in this case, since they aren't doing it to get to copyrighted materials.
Anyone with kids is hopelessly punished by the ticket prices, not to mention the confectionary stand. (Suuuure you can convince the kids to skip that $2 medium drink and those $3.50 candies!)
Bull. Tell them no, stay firm. If they insist, talk to the manager to get your money back and don't take them to the movies anymore.
I'm sick of people w/kids saying they have no control over them. You don't have to listen to your kids, no matter how annoying they might be.
The convicted party has more rights than the victims (in this case everyone). This is wholly unfair!
While i agree that MS should be getting punished and its not, i don't think that victims should have any more rights then the convicted (or your normal citizen). Everyone has the same rights, period.
Of course the auto companies would steal the idea of there was no legislation protecting the inventor.
Well he was claiming another 'inventor' would use the idea and profit from it. My arguement was that no one would profit from it with the absence of law.
the absence of copyright law encourages theft.
Copyright law won't help in this case; perhaps you mean patents?
At any rate, its not theft. You can't steal an idea. Things that can be duplicated freely and without cost are by definition not worth anything.
Now, of course the argument is that the inventor (or writer, or whathaveyou), has a right to be profit from his discovery; this is not the case. Ideas belong to anyone willing to listen. The only way you have 'theft' (which is not really theft, its IP infringment) is by artifically calling it that by force of law.
The reason we have IP law is to encourage developers of ideas to create ideas, so that they may profit for a short time, but then the idea is free for the world to use. The inventor gets something, and so does society. And society is what, in the end, we are trying to elevate.
The last statistical poll i saw about the matter said most americans wanted bush to worry about the economy and not iraq.
Consider someone who has developed an idea to improve auto gas mileage by 100 percent. He publishes that idea. However, because of a total lack of copyright protection, someone else picks up that publication, re-publishes it under his own name, and strikes a deal with the auto manufacturers that brings him millions of dollars in royalties and payments. The actual originator is left high and dry.
Um, that particular case doesn't hold water. Why would the auto makers pay royalties when they could just steal the idea themselves?
I doubt the automakers would profit from this anyway, since ALL of them could take the idea and implment it. They'd be saying 'buy our car b/c we have a windshield' Ya..
...a cogent case can be made that some of the people downloading that copy would otherwise have purchased it. That deprives people of revenue they would otherwise receive.
See, thats the part that i always like to challenge. I'd be interested to see hard facts stating what percentage of people WOULD buy the cd if that were the only way to listen to it (besides the radio of course).
I'm willing to bet the percentage is quite low. Certainly thats the case with everyone i know. They download the music they would not pay for otherwise; they do however, buy music they like alot.
I'm not sure this is the case all the time either. Here's an example:
Someone is released from jail, for armed robbery lets say. The prison system in this case worked, and he now realizes the error of his ways. He wants to make the best of his second chance. However, since the town he commited the crime is may not be as forgiving as it should be, he decides to start over across the country.
Modern technology may allow residents in his new town to easily find out about his jail term. Like most people today, they think 'once a criminal, always a criminal' and proceed to harrase him or try to block him from living there altogether.
Basically, he has a 'scarlet letter.' Personally, something bothers me with a 'one strike you're out' attitude, which is essentially what this is.
But back to the original debate. Perhaps it is wrong to take a paper public record and make it available to the world electronically via the internet. In theory anyone could go to the court of public records of our ex-felons town and find out, but its doubtful anyone would bother going cross country to do so. However, with the record on the internet, anyone can find it in seconds.
Maybe what we need is a law saying copyright is non-transferable.
7 was never mentioned in the Constitution. It was the first implementation by Congress.
Thanks for clarifying that. I double checking and you are correct. I also find some reasoning behind the Bono Extention...b/c people were living longer. Um, ya...
So you might say "people" own works get 70 years protection, while corporate owned ones get 7. But, there are a multitude of contractual ways to convert one into the other. Companies will end up with everything the individual owns, one way or another.
I'd hope not. Personally i don't see why many authors transfer ownership of copyright. It doesn't seem necessary.
Frankly, the issue here is way beyond copyright. It is proof positive that the US Government is no longer acting "by, for, or of the people". It no longer represents the country at large, but rather highly suspect, unseen, and unaccountable interests.
This article has a theory about that. It actually makes alot of sense.
Now -- With who's "one voice" is the President claiming his right to invade Iraq? Who gave him that -- and by what authority if it wasn't the people of the US?
Certainly not mine. War is the last thing i want right now. Bush doesn't seem to know what he's doing.
Whats wrong with seven, as was the case originally in the Constitution.
You ignore the simple fact that not many people will try to create something that they can't make money off of. Why would any movie studio make a movie if they can't copyright it for some time at least?
So i'll disagree with you here. The problem isn't copyright, its the lenght of the copyright. Seven years is more then enough time to make your profit, i'd think. I also think it would encourage MORE works; which is the intent, after all.
Think it's hard now....think down the DRM road where the access is controlled "per-play" rather than "I have the album"....as soon as the consumer looses the right to "hold the album/rights to listen".....it's all over....
For me it will be over. Simply put, i don't care enough to spend much money to watch or listen to copyrighted materials. Music i can live without already, most of it is crap. Movies i love, but i'll get over it. I'll just spend more time bar hopping or playing pool or whatever.
Think about it, that's where EULA's have been going with "revokable liscense agreements" and the rest of it. You no longer have the ability to keep using something that you bought, even if you still have the media.....time expired!
Ya EULA's can kiss my ass. The fact that the terms of it ARE NOT available until after the purchase voids them. Some notice saying 'there's a contract inside' doesn't cut it either. Unless i am presented with the EULA at time of purchse and agree then to it (by signing something) i didn't agree to it. Simply reading or making a hand gesture doesn't mean i've agreed to it.
If some idiot judge thinks it does...well i'll post a large sign on my property that says 'by reading this you agree to pay me $500' and a camera to help for enforcement.
I know you are trying to present valid arguements, but I hear a whiny teenager saying things like "But I don't want to work, I'll never have time to party", and "You mean I have to live with my parents for another four years? I can't take it!"
... I never said having debt was dumb, I said being buried in debt was dumb. You're the one who decided that was an all-or-nothing deal.
Well hear what you will.
So please look at what i actually said. Notice the word 'party' didn't appear anywhere. Also notice you took two of my arguements and read into them something that wasn't there while ignoring the others.
So do you consider going to class and doing the assignements that go along with it work? I certainly do. There were many times where the amount of work you have from college does take up all your free time. There were many quarters were i spent every waking moment in a lab or in a class room. ALL my meals were gotten from a vending machine. I would not have been able to do as well if i had to work during those times. Thats the bottom line.
As far as moving out of your parents goes, perhaps living with them is not a viable option for a lot of people. For me, the nearest college was 30 minutes away. Automattically that means that, unless i get my degree from a community college (which are known for being ridiculously easy to get into), i would have to move out at some point. Just about every college requires freshmen (and increasingly, sophmores) to reside on campus unless they live less then a few miles away (if i remember correctly, it was usually 15 miles).
Seriously, how much of that is just wanting to get away from your parents and do stupid, crazy stuff? How much of that has anything to do with actual education?
I can only speak for myself, not others. Personally i didn't want to leave home. Especially going as far as i did. In the end it was better for me. As far as doing crazy stuff goes...
Well if by crazy you mean staying up until 1am and playing quake, then i guess i was crazy. I got my work done, and i didn't have to be up until 8 usually the next day. Or if i did have to be up earlier, i wasn't up till 1am the night before. Hell i never had a drop of alcohol until 4 months before i graduated! I'm not going to say i never had any fun; i certainly did. But i didn't move away for that purpose. It was a combination of finding a good school, and my mom's desire for me to 'see whats outside of my home' that finalized my choice. I think its said that there are people from my hometown that still have never left. They probably never will. At any rate, you never went full time to college, so i guess you'll never find out just how much of it is 'actual education.'
but I my level of debt is such that I could still make my payments if I were making half as much as I am now, so I don't consider my debt to be excessive.
Forgive me if i'm misunderstanding, but by what you're saying you believe i have excessive debt. If i made half, i probably would have to make changes just to make payments on debt and cover living expenses. I have almost no savings. Yet i certainly didn't blow it living things up; in a little less then a year and a half, i have paid back 1/3 of my college loans. This is the wise thing to do i believe, since in the end i will have a) removed my only real debt and b) will have paid much less then if i took 10 years to pay it back.
Well, being a white male who is paying his own way through college while also supporting a family, I have to say "cry me a fucking river".
Why do people that support a family think they have a harder time then anyone else? They seem to think that everyone else should have compasion for them, but they never do for anyone else. Well anyone else that doesn't have a family.
Which brings me to another question. You said youi could lose half your income and still be ok, but what if you lost your wifes income completely. God forbid she dies or is an accident where she can no longer work. Would you still be ok? How about if at the same time you had to take the minimum wage job? Think you could be buried in debt then?
But fortunatly those things will never happen, b/c fate has nothing to do with it.
I suppose it was my own fault that someone else was tailgating another car and then hit mine while i was stopped.
So now you've switched from college debt to excessive college debt? I think you should be more clear in the future.
While your suggestions may be practical for some people, i'm sure they are not for others.
Its true that a JC may give a better education then a more prestigious collge would, going to a noname school probably won't help you as much when you gradute. In some cases, the prestigious college may also actually be the best.
As for scholarships; yes they are available. Unless you're a white male. Sort of out of luck them. Believe me i looked. This thing happens in other areas too, not just scholarships.
Academically i was in the top 10% of my class. But that wasn't good enough to qualify me for anything. I'm glad your sister was able to compete in a beauty pagent for one, but that particular option is pretty limited. In the end i got a need based scholarship from my college.
Yes you can work during college. It can be difficult though. Getting the education is secondary to any job you might have; at least it probably will have to be if you want to do well in college. In my case, i worked for food, gas (when i was not living on campus) and extra spending money. I don't think its reasonable to ask anyone to be all work and no play, at least not for extended periods of time.
You can live at home and go to college. But that limits your choice of college greatly. You also miss out on the social part of college. There is alot of learning that goes on in college that does not take place in the classroom. I'm sure anyone that has gone a good distance for college will atest to that. A good distance being one where you only come home for the holidays, and maybe a few weekends.
There may also be problems with taking courses at a community college and transfering them. It seems that today less and less credits are transferable between colleges. It may also complicate financial aid, and can make scheduling more difficult, especially if one is working while taking classes.
Now i'm not saying that your suggestions are impossible or not worth pursuing. They certainly worked for your sister, but i doubt everyones situation will match your sisters. Some or all might be more difficult to implement, or just not possible.
So what exactly is your idea of excessive debt from college? Is it coincidence or on purpose that your sisters debt you seem to imply is not excessive. FYI, my college debt ended up to be ~$30k, with my mom having her own loans for it (she won't tell me how much).
However, I wasn't talking about people who went to school and actually got an education.
But hey, getting buried in debt is just plain dumb anyway, college education or not.
So how do you get a GOOD college education without ending up in debt? Save?? ya. Have your parents pay for it? Well thats nice but most people can't rely on thier parents to do so.
You seem to acknowledge that you need an education to get a decent job, but then you turn around and say even college debt is dumb. So what are people supposed to do?
I like how you just dismiss theory.
I've encountered plenty of people that only had 'real' experience. They get the job done, yes, but their code is sloppy as hell. Client asks for a minor change, and the program is fucked. A little theory could have guided them to a better design. Your circuits may work, but they are probably poorly designed.
Bottom line is that both theory and real world skills are important. I was fortunate enough that my college offered by (real skill by way of coop).