Well. I've browsed sites like Milw0rm ad Packetstorm without https. I'm sure there's non-https warez sites... Pirate Bay? So maybe you just don't need HTTPS. Or maybe you just accept the exception for this session, and the 1 or 2 sites you hit you just browse.
If Tor is running on the local machine, yes. Normally you don't use a remote HTTP TOR.
Classical proxy server HTTP sends a normal HTTP request, but always sends it to a particular IP. Normally you look up www.slashdot.org and send the request there. The request includes a Host: header always, so instead of GET/index.html HTTP/1.1 to Host: www.slashdot.org on 216.34.181.48, you send that to 10.10.100.50. 10.10.100.50 uses the Host: header to DNS look-up www.slashdot.org and sends the exact same request on.
It's not that simple. If an independent steel mill operates favorably with an independent construction company, you have what is considered illegal trust activity. This is no different with the same shareholders on the board; just the burden of proof is lower because of obvious conflict of interest, rather than implied collusion. If they operate independently without favoritism to anyone, then it's not considered trust activity.
So you see, if Tesla spins off Tesla Dealerships, they could be put under scrutiny for vertical monopolization; but if the same shareholders found Nicholai Tesla Dealerships without collusion, kickbacks, or whatnot--with just the normal business operations of any other Ford or Mazda dealership--it's perfectly legal. It'll draw scrutiny, but it's not illegal per se.
Anti-Trust laws are in place mainly for the health of the market. They're not there because it's unfair that executives get to draw cash from too many sources; they're in place because that kind of behavior erodes the market.
I'm just facepalming at the whole thing. It's like when Nike started their company based on the premise that a cushion to protect the foot from strong heel strike would allow runners to run faster... which turned out to be completely batshit fucking backwards and the worst thing you could possibly design into a running shoe. A hundred years later, the entire shoe industry still pushes this "cushioned heel" design heavily, even though it's counterproductive and actively harmful, making runners slower and even causing more injury.
In a mechanical system, you can have things like viscous couplers or torsion differentials. The wheels will spin at the same speed, but if one encounters less resistance then more power will move to the others. A single power unit supplies power input, which is then distributed based on the laws of physics as applied to a complex mechanical system. Gears and metal poles are lossy due to heat from flexing, compressing metal; viscous couplings are obviously more lossy because they're non-solid and thus the working fluid is experiencing far more deformation than metal.
In a hub layout, all those inefficiencies go away. Computers perfectly apply the correct amount of torque at the correct rotational speed directly to each wheel. For a given RPM, the motor will simply spin at no torque unless there is resistance, at which point it will draw more power to retain spin speed.
Unless... your calculations are slightly wrong. And the motors have loss by heat--which they do. And the computer has to calculate when to back off power to one free-spinning motor which is now heating up and spinning the wheel too god damn fast, but only after taking a sample.
Hub motor efficiency gains aren't ungodly massive; they're small, and they require perfect operation. They also require additional (powered) sensors and computer number crunching, rather than passive mechanical systems which simply cannot function in any manner besides "distribute power correctly" or "fail completely because the system is broken". Drifting sensors, poor sampling, and just the need to get enough of a sample to make a statistically significant analysis and adjust power output per wheel all rob hub motor systems of their theoretical maximum efficiency. The first of these is of particular practical importance: it's extremely easy for this system to be out of spec and inefficient without the end user knowing or caring. The rest are engineering challenges.
All of these potential failures are multiplied by the number of hub-powered wheels. An entire drive train system--a hub motor, its connection to the wheel, sensors, power connectors, regenerative braking mechanisms, and so on--must be duplicated four times to get all-wheel drive. With a single power unit in a mechanical system, you only need to build one drive train, which is simpler and only needs to be incrementally improved in very direct and simple ways. No improving computer code for the average case while trading off the better case; no attempting to get sensors to get more precise data, then trying to factor that improvement into the rest of the control system. You use better alloys, better machined gears, you use what you learn from further research to tweak the design so that it couples and transfers power more effectively and reacts more quickly and immediately to slippage.
The big driver for hub motor vehicles is all the things you can do in theory. Modern traction control and ESC applies braking force to individual wheels, whereas you could just back off the hub motor... or apply braking force by the regenerative brake. But that begs the question: aren't you using the same computer control programs for regenerative brake applied traction control as you are for hub motor regenerative brake traction control? And then of course those benefits essentially come down to the corner case of driving in terrible conditions, which is inefficient as hell anyway--and your efficiency gains are minimal.
Lots of funny theory, lots of "with X we can Y", as it has always been. One of the big pushes with Firewire was that we were going to have revolutionized home entertainment: you would have abstract equipment with IEEE1394 ports, plug a speaker into the VCR, plug another into the TV, subwoofer into a receiver deck at the back of the room daisy chained to the DVD player, and daisy chain rear room speakers off that, and all these devices would find each other through these arbitrary connections and unify themselves as your home theater. That was being heavily advertised in home theater shops for a while, but it never happened. All these things you should be able to do with your iPad never materialized. The XO Laptop hasn't met its potential yet--it has revolutionized nothing. Same with hub motors.
There's one motor, a direct drive linkage (no transmission), and differentials. Hub motors require all kinds of computer control, with associated high chances of fault that could much more easily lead to loss of control or efficiency. Hub motor efficiency is kind of like video poker: perfect play for 3 years straight will net you a profit, absolutely, no question you will beat the casino; the profit is small, and a single small mistake will set you back about 85 years. It only makes sense in a motorcycle, where you have one rear wheel hub motor.
There are no laws against a business being owned by the same people doing anything. There are laws against a business being owned by another business (holding) having access to its resources to do something.
Analyzing your opponent's responses on any level is not ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is "You're a negro, therefor you're an uneducated welfare-child drug dealer, therefor you must be wrong." My response was a call-out of cherry picking, an analysis of your sharp emotional responses, and a minor dissertation on how this applies to credibility of argument.
Essentially it's a counter-argument to your argument by volume (i.e. screaming and stamping your feet to appear large, confident, and thus win the debate by convincing others that you have a stronger stance).
I will be none too surprised when Tesla's Board of Directors take out a new venture: Future Auto, the Autoship Dealer of the Future! Then they open dealerships selling Volts, Leafs, and--most prominently--Tesla electric cars and even some hub motor bikes with diesel one cylinders. Every existing car dealership in your city looks like you just stepped into 1920; this is the only place in town anyone wants to buy a car from. Profits for every dealer are at record lows. Going out of business sale everywhere.
Art of the Fallacy: Cherry Picking. Pick out anecdote and small inflections while ignoring the greater trend of data.
Your responses indicate that, physiologically speaking, you have a strongly encoded belief (likely "enabling all persons to independently enter college immediately after high school is a good thing") in your basal ganglia, and the conflicting idea entering your prefrontal cortex is creating the standard physiological response: stress and an immediate shift of blood flow away from your prefrontal cortex (analytical) to your amygdala (emotional).
The strong responses indicate an inability to find actual supporting arguments, thus indicating that you have no standing. That doesn't indicate that you're wrong--logical fallacies don't indicate that an argument's premise is incorrect either, rather just that the argument itself is not sensible--but it does indicate that you have no sensible reasoning behind your assertions. In short: your major supporting arguments are essentially the same as a child's major supporting arguments for the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
My essential point is that businesses want high-experience, high-training professionals; they will settle for low-experience, qualified professionals. If they can have neither, they have two choices: go nowhere--because you pay $250k for an essential position who is in so much demand that he's paid $275k to leave you in 4 months and go to a competitor--or take low-experience, low-training entrants and turn them into professionals.
I'm slowly forming a middle-ground opinion, but it takes time. Prefrontal cortex runs rather hot and it's slow going. I think there's value in public education, but not in public vocational training. What is vocational? Access to higher mathematics, engineering basics, physical sciences, etc.--general, non-vocational education--is not actively harmful. Or it may be; I don't know. Access to multi-year programs that get you a credential saying "I am fit for job X" may get you fit for job X, which is saturated and thus you cannot do anything but sit unemployed.
Maybe. A good, readily-accessible education system is great for businesses who want to access an abundant supply of off-the-shelf talent at low, low prices. It's not so good for the supply, which is somewhat perishable.
The supply is vocational graduates.
When Arthur Anderson was in business, accounting was big business; a lot of students went to school for accounting, got jobs, made a lot of money. Left to its own devices, the market would have eventually saturated, and a lot of accountants would have come along with no jobs--the ones who did get jobs would be cheap, low-salary accountants. As is, Arthur Anderson collapsed after Enron, flooding the streets with accountants; this accomplished the same: starving, worthless, jobless accountants everywhere.
The US had a nurse shortage around the early 2000s. Nobody wanted to be nurses. Since nurses were so rare, salaries became high. It is well-known that this created the nursing bubble, in which many students went to school for nursing. Short years later, nurses were worth $40k with a master's degree; most couldn't get jobs because there were far too many nurses.
We did the same with Web developers, programmers, and most IT. Runaway investment in these jobs because of the high demand and the high salaries soon lead to a cycle of many, many IT graduates coming out of college ready to go into programming jobs and network administration and not able to find any. The ones that did could net $50k.
So in the end we have all these students who are simple resources that companies could bring in as entrants, shift low-skill tasks onto as a way to free up high-skill labor for more high-skill demanding tasks (Miyomoto Musashi, Book of Five Rings), and pass more skill-intensive tasks as they train the entrants into high-skill labor. Instead, the students go out to train themselves on their own investment, and then hope that the skills they acquire are still in demand--often they're not.
This is good for businesses, in some short-sighted manner: labor is cheap, readily-available in certain sectors, and so on. It is bad for entrant labor. It is actually bad for business when demand shifts onto new sectors, because they must wait for entrant labor to saturate the market with skilled workers before they can pursue new business strategies--and of course the entrant laborers continue to over-saturate the market past that point, reducing their individual value and increasing the unemployment (Failure) rate.
This is economics, game theory, speculative investment, all rolled into one. I'm sorry if you're not a polymath, but take my word for it: it's complex and the naive solution is harmful. Too much education availability is a poison.
Yeah I'm thinking this is backwards. You defrauded the state $25M? Well you owe the state $25M, plus interest, plus overhead, plus punitive damages for being a dickhead. A settlement would be $25M--break even--at the very least; you want it to be a little bit more so that a high incidence of getting caught can lead to a poor ROI (i.e. if you have a 1 in 50 chance of netting $25M and otherwise it costs you $2M, you're $73M short in the long run per 50 suits). This settlement is bullshit.
Think about "Computer Fraud and Abuse". The wording of the law makes it so that a strict definition of a "computer" can make you guilty of anything. A touch-tone telephone with number memory and built-in answering machine may be a small embedded computer; if you use it to dial into a phone system tree and hack your way through the system, you're using "a phone"... but, since it's got an embedded SOC, can you be charged with hacking "with a computer"?
It's an important distinction. The thing has the capability to be "a computer", but it's being used and operated in the restrictions of "a phone". If it were trivially different hardware capable of and used for exactly the crime you committed, would you fall under a less-punitive law; or would you be indicted for much worse crimes because your crime was committed "with a computer"?
In the same way: Gun crime (instant additional penalty for committing any crime with "a firearm") versus gauss gun, a metal tube with an explosive charge (naptha etc) in the bottom and a projectile (not a gun, but close, and uses fire), a flywheel-driven device that uses stored mechanical energy to launch a small rock, etc. Shaped like and recognizable as a gun, fires like a gun, functionally a gun? When is it a gun crime?
You're baffled by the alternative that businesses, incapable of finding enough labor to achieve their goals, will provide for the vocational training of able entrants in the same numbers as they would naturally hire in a flooded market?
I mean let's face it, the essential choice is this: either you pay money for a degree and get hired; or your employer pays money for a degree for you. That's the two success situations.
The two failure situations are this: either you pay money for a degree and don't get hired; or there is no labor demand at all for anything, degree or not--there are exactly enough or more people with experience and degrees in all fields to fill all job positions, woe to you. In the first place, you can get there by either selecting an already and continually non-useful degree (art history) or selecting an immediately useful degree in a scarce market that, by the time you get into the job market, becomes an over-supplied market from everyone getting degrees in that field. In the second place, there simply isn't any demand in any vocation--you have no winning selection, so you fail regardless.
It seems that the alternative which I suggest provides more and better success cases and fewer failure cases.
Even if it's as bad as you make it seem, that's still a chance of success as opposed to not being educated and having 0% chance.
From TFS:
Many businesses that are looking at a shortfall of more than a million programmers by the year 2020 are more than willing to give inexperienced grads a chance, even if some are destined to fail.
So we're going from "put in your hard work and have a roulette-wheel chance of winning" to "put in your hard work and have a high chance of success; be a poor lazy welfare wart on the ass of society and go nowhere".
The problem is they don't need to make sure of anything because there's plenty of investment from other countries to take advantage of. We live in a global economy, and we should be investing in our competitiveness.
The only reason not to outsource is: Our local talent is better. The outsourcing problem is entirely wage-based: $50,000/year for American programmers versus $15,000/year for Indian programmers. If the Indian programmers are essentially on parity with Americans, or at least close enough, then you're better off working at McDonalds because you won't have college debt. If businesses want to hire American programmers at above-McDonalds wages, then... well, see above.
Can you try to not argue against what is exactly in front of you?
Can you explain what a computer is? For example: Can you explain why a cell phone isn't a computer--despite having computer pieces--but a smart phone is? Can you explain why a wifi card isn't a computer, even though it's running an operating system managing software and hardware?
This is the same public education problem. If you provide universal education--that is, provide for a way for everyone to buy into education on their own--then what you get is market speculation by students, which often fails. For example: now again we have a need for programmers because things like Roku are becoming popular and we want to build more Android and iOS apps for phones and smart TVs; everyone in the world will want to be a programmer for those $90k, $110k, $150k salaries, and then in 5 years there will be so many programmers that none of them can get a job because some 10% of them filled all the slots and got $60k salaries out of it to boot.
The summary directly acknowledges that, short on a crop of self-made resources, businesses are buying into low-experience, low-training wannabe poor kids who can't afford college degrees and then supplying career development. Which is something I've said again and again: universal access to education doesn't provide greater upward mobility for the poor; it forces them to speculate, which gives them a hit-or-miss chance of success if they bother putting in the hard work to become career-worthy, which only the rich can manage to absorb in the case of landing in the "not useful because saturated market" bin. Government-backed loans and government-provided vocational education is bad for the poor.
I mean christ, I'm looking right at it. Right here. Do you see this? This is what happens when not enough people can get an education: the businesses need these educated kids to succeed, and not enough rich kids have those degrees and those skills, so the businesses grab anyone who can absorb those skills and makes sure they get it. Because hell if I'm going to lose market share to that goat fucker Cogswell when he publishes an iOS app selling his cogs to a huge market I can't reach.
The only reason for this "Hot Mix" thing you speak of is to take advantage of the human predisposition to favor a slightly higher sound pressure level as better quality. If a sound is overall 0.2dB louder, it will be considered better quality.
These sorts of mixes lose dynamic range and shrink the noise floor. Such shit.
There is always resistance to change. That is a fundamental truth; all diplomacy, negotiation, and theories of attaining buy-in are founded on the idea that nobody likes change unless they came up with the idea. Even when you're actively in pain, a change to correct that pain is accepted mostly because of the pain; it is on the whole unpalatable, but at the moment that is a lesser concern.
And of course Congress is filled with nutjobs. The problem with implementing this isn't Congress: a coalition of enough Americans will put them in their place, whether you want to believe that or not; the number required is just rather high. I refer you to marijuana legislation. In any case, the problem implementing this is more of getting a neutral document written; anyone involved in the process is well-positioned to create something favorable to themselves, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well. I've browsed sites like Milw0rm ad Packetstorm without https. I'm sure there's non-https warez sites... Pirate Bay? So maybe you just don't need HTTPS. Or maybe you just accept the exception for this session, and the 1 or 2 sites you hit you just browse.
If Tor is running on the local machine, yes. Normally you don't use a remote HTTP TOR.
Classical proxy server HTTP sends a normal HTTP request, but always sends it to a particular IP. Normally you look up www.slashdot.org and send the request there. The request includes a Host: header always, so instead of GET /index.html HTTP/1.1 to Host: www.slashdot.org on 216.34.181.48, you send that to 10.10.100.50. 10.10.100.50 uses the Host: header to DNS look-up www.slashdot.org and sends the exact same request on.
Remember when GameSpy just did this without integrating with the game?
It's not that simple. If an independent steel mill operates favorably with an independent construction company, you have what is considered illegal trust activity. This is no different with the same shareholders on the board; just the burden of proof is lower because of obvious conflict of interest, rather than implied collusion. If they operate independently without favoritism to anyone, then it's not considered trust activity.
So you see, if Tesla spins off Tesla Dealerships, they could be put under scrutiny for vertical monopolization; but if the same shareholders found Nicholai Tesla Dealerships without collusion, kickbacks, or whatnot--with just the normal business operations of any other Ford or Mazda dealership--it's perfectly legal. It'll draw scrutiny, but it's not illegal per se.
Anti-Trust laws are in place mainly for the health of the market. They're not there because it's unfair that executives get to draw cash from too many sources; they're in place because that kind of behavior erodes the market.
I'm just facepalming at the whole thing. It's like when Nike started their company based on the premise that a cushion to protect the foot from strong heel strike would allow runners to run faster... which turned out to be completely batshit fucking backwards and the worst thing you could possibly design into a running shoe. A hundred years later, the entire shoe industry still pushes this "cushioned heel" design heavily, even though it's counterproductive and actively harmful, making runners slower and even causing more injury.
In a mechanical system, you can have things like viscous couplers or torsion differentials. The wheels will spin at the same speed, but if one encounters less resistance then more power will move to the others. A single power unit supplies power input, which is then distributed based on the laws of physics as applied to a complex mechanical system. Gears and metal poles are lossy due to heat from flexing, compressing metal; viscous couplings are obviously more lossy because they're non-solid and thus the working fluid is experiencing far more deformation than metal.
In a hub layout, all those inefficiencies go away. Computers perfectly apply the correct amount of torque at the correct rotational speed directly to each wheel. For a given RPM, the motor will simply spin at no torque unless there is resistance, at which point it will draw more power to retain spin speed.
Unless... your calculations are slightly wrong. And the motors have loss by heat--which they do. And the computer has to calculate when to back off power to one free-spinning motor which is now heating up and spinning the wheel too god damn fast, but only after taking a sample.
Hub motor efficiency gains aren't ungodly massive; they're small, and they require perfect operation. They also require additional (powered) sensors and computer number crunching, rather than passive mechanical systems which simply cannot function in any manner besides "distribute power correctly" or "fail completely because the system is broken". Drifting sensors, poor sampling, and just the need to get enough of a sample to make a statistically significant analysis and adjust power output per wheel all rob hub motor systems of their theoretical maximum efficiency. The first of these is of particular practical importance: it's extremely easy for this system to be out of spec and inefficient without the end user knowing or caring. The rest are engineering challenges.
All of these potential failures are multiplied by the number of hub-powered wheels. An entire drive train system--a hub motor, its connection to the wheel, sensors, power connectors, regenerative braking mechanisms, and so on--must be duplicated four times to get all-wheel drive. With a single power unit in a mechanical system, you only need to build one drive train, which is simpler and only needs to be incrementally improved in very direct and simple ways. No improving computer code for the average case while trading off the better case; no attempting to get sensors to get more precise data, then trying to factor that improvement into the rest of the control system. You use better alloys, better machined gears, you use what you learn from further research to tweak the design so that it couples and transfers power more effectively and reacts more quickly and immediately to slippage.
The big driver for hub motor vehicles is all the things you can do in theory. Modern traction control and ESC applies braking force to individual wheels, whereas you could just back off the hub motor... or apply braking force by the regenerative brake. But that begs the question: aren't you using the same computer control programs for regenerative brake applied traction control as you are for hub motor regenerative brake traction control? And then of course those benefits essentially come down to the corner case of driving in terrible conditions, which is inefficient as hell anyway--and your efficiency gains are minimal.
Lots of funny theory, lots of "with X we can Y", as it has always been. One of the big pushes with Firewire was that we were going to have revolutionized home entertainment: you would have abstract equipment with IEEE1394 ports, plug a speaker into the VCR, plug another into the TV, subwoofer into a receiver deck at the back of the room daisy chained to the DVD player, and daisy chain rear room speakers off that, and all these devices would find each other through these arbitrary connections and unify themselves as your home theater. That was being heavily advertised in home theater shops for a while, but it never happened. All these things you should be able to do with your iPad never materialized. The XO Laptop hasn't met its potential yet--it has revolutionized nothing. Same with hub motors.
There's one motor, a direct drive linkage (no transmission), and differentials. Hub motors require all kinds of computer control, with associated high chances of fault that could much more easily lead to loss of control or efficiency. Hub motor efficiency is kind of like video poker: perfect play for 3 years straight will net you a profit, absolutely, no question you will beat the casino; the profit is small, and a single small mistake will set you back about 85 years. It only makes sense in a motorcycle, where you have one rear wheel hub motor.
There are no laws against a business being owned by the same people doing anything. There are laws against a business being owned by another business (holding) having access to its resources to do something.
Analyzing your opponent's responses on any level is not ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is "You're a negro, therefor you're an uneducated welfare-child drug dealer, therefor you must be wrong." My response was a call-out of cherry picking, an analysis of your sharp emotional responses, and a minor dissertation on how this applies to credibility of argument.
Essentially it's a counter-argument to your argument by volume (i.e. screaming and stamping your feet to appear large, confident, and thus win the debate by convincing others that you have a stronger stance).
I will be none too surprised when Tesla's Board of Directors take out a new venture: Future Auto, the Autoship Dealer of the Future! Then they open dealerships selling Volts, Leafs, and--most prominently--Tesla electric cars and even some hub motor bikes with diesel one cylinders. Every existing car dealership in your city looks like you just stepped into 1920; this is the only place in town anyone wants to buy a car from. Profits for every dealer are at record lows. Going out of business sale everywhere.
Art of the Fallacy: Cherry Picking. Pick out anecdote and small inflections while ignoring the greater trend of data.
Your responses indicate that, physiologically speaking, you have a strongly encoded belief (likely "enabling all persons to independently enter college immediately after high school is a good thing") in your basal ganglia, and the conflicting idea entering your prefrontal cortex is creating the standard physiological response: stress and an immediate shift of blood flow away from your prefrontal cortex (analytical) to your amygdala (emotional).
The strong responses indicate an inability to find actual supporting arguments, thus indicating that you have no standing. That doesn't indicate that you're wrong--logical fallacies don't indicate that an argument's premise is incorrect either, rather just that the argument itself is not sensible--but it does indicate that you have no sensible reasoning behind your assertions. In short: your major supporting arguments are essentially the same as a child's major supporting arguments for the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
And yet history supports me with trends in education booms and following low salaries and unemployment statistics.
It continues to appear that I'm right and yet nobody will accept it. Lemmings.
Has that ever happened?
Of the 4000 lasers pointed at air planes, how many caused loss of life or property?
My essential point is that businesses want high-experience, high-training professionals; they will settle for low-experience, qualified professionals. If they can have neither, they have two choices: go nowhere--because you pay $250k for an essential position who is in so much demand that he's paid $275k to leave you in 4 months and go to a competitor--or take low-experience, low-training entrants and turn them into professionals.
I'm slowly forming a middle-ground opinion, but it takes time. Prefrontal cortex runs rather hot and it's slow going. I think there's value in public education, but not in public vocational training. What is vocational? Access to higher mathematics, engineering basics, physical sciences, etc.--general, non-vocational education--is not actively harmful. Or it may be; I don't know. Access to multi-year programs that get you a credential saying "I am fit for job X" may get you fit for job X, which is saturated and thus you cannot do anything but sit unemployed.
Maybe. A good, readily-accessible education system is great for businesses who want to access an abundant supply of off-the-shelf talent at low, low prices. It's not so good for the supply, which is somewhat perishable.
The supply is vocational graduates.
When Arthur Anderson was in business, accounting was big business; a lot of students went to school for accounting, got jobs, made a lot of money. Left to its own devices, the market would have eventually saturated, and a lot of accountants would have come along with no jobs--the ones who did get jobs would be cheap, low-salary accountants. As is, Arthur Anderson collapsed after Enron, flooding the streets with accountants; this accomplished the same: starving, worthless, jobless accountants everywhere.
The US had a nurse shortage around the early 2000s. Nobody wanted to be nurses. Since nurses were so rare, salaries became high. It is well-known that this created the nursing bubble, in which many students went to school for nursing. Short years later, nurses were worth $40k with a master's degree; most couldn't get jobs because there were far too many nurses.
We did the same with Web developers, programmers, and most IT. Runaway investment in these jobs because of the high demand and the high salaries soon lead to a cycle of many, many IT graduates coming out of college ready to go into programming jobs and network administration and not able to find any. The ones that did could net $50k.
So in the end we have all these students who are simple resources that companies could bring in as entrants, shift low-skill tasks onto as a way to free up high-skill labor for more high-skill demanding tasks (Miyomoto Musashi, Book of Five Rings), and pass more skill-intensive tasks as they train the entrants into high-skill labor. Instead, the students go out to train themselves on their own investment, and then hope that the skills they acquire are still in demand--often they're not.
This is good for businesses, in some short-sighted manner: labor is cheap, readily-available in certain sectors, and so on. It is bad for entrant labor. It is actually bad for business when demand shifts onto new sectors, because they must wait for entrant labor to saturate the market with skilled workers before they can pursue new business strategies--and of course the entrant laborers continue to over-saturate the market past that point, reducing their individual value and increasing the unemployment (Failure) rate.
This is economics, game theory, speculative investment, all rolled into one. I'm sorry if you're not a polymath, but take my word for it: it's complex and the naive solution is harmful. Too much education availability is a poison.
Yeah I'm thinking this is backwards. You defrauded the state $25M? Well you owe the state $25M, plus interest, plus overhead, plus punitive damages for being a dickhead. A settlement would be $25M--break even--at the very least; you want it to be a little bit more so that a high incidence of getting caught can lead to a poor ROI (i.e. if you have a 1 in 50 chance of netting $25M and otherwise it costs you $2M, you're $73M short in the long run per 50 suits). This settlement is bullshit.
Think about "Computer Fraud and Abuse". The wording of the law makes it so that a strict definition of a "computer" can make you guilty of anything. A touch-tone telephone with number memory and built-in answering machine may be a small embedded computer; if you use it to dial into a phone system tree and hack your way through the system, you're using "a phone"... but, since it's got an embedded SOC, can you be charged with hacking "with a computer"?
It's an important distinction. The thing has the capability to be "a computer", but it's being used and operated in the restrictions of "a phone". If it were trivially different hardware capable of and used for exactly the crime you committed, would you fall under a less-punitive law; or would you be indicted for much worse crimes because your crime was committed "with a computer"?
In the same way: Gun crime (instant additional penalty for committing any crime with "a firearm") versus gauss gun, a metal tube with an explosive charge (naptha etc) in the bottom and a projectile (not a gun, but close, and uses fire), a flywheel-driven device that uses stored mechanical energy to launch a small rock, etc. Shaped like and recognizable as a gun, fires like a gun, functionally a gun? When is it a gun crime?
I'm baffled by what alternative you suggest.
You're baffled by the alternative that businesses, incapable of finding enough labor to achieve their goals, will provide for the vocational training of able entrants in the same numbers as they would naturally hire in a flooded market?
I mean let's face it, the essential choice is this: either you pay money for a degree and get hired; or your employer pays money for a degree for you. That's the two success situations.
The two failure situations are this: either you pay money for a degree and don't get hired; or there is no labor demand at all for anything, degree or not--there are exactly enough or more people with experience and degrees in all fields to fill all job positions, woe to you. In the first place, you can get there by either selecting an already and continually non-useful degree (art history) or selecting an immediately useful degree in a scarce market that, by the time you get into the job market, becomes an over-supplied market from everyone getting degrees in that field. In the second place, there simply isn't any demand in any vocation--you have no winning selection, so you fail regardless.
It seems that the alternative which I suggest provides more and better success cases and fewer failure cases.
Even if it's as bad as you make it seem, that's still a chance of success as opposed to not being educated and having 0% chance.
From TFS:
Many businesses that are looking at a shortfall of more than a million programmers by the year 2020 are more than willing to give inexperienced grads a chance, even if some are destined to fail.
So we're going from "put in your hard work and have a roulette-wheel chance of winning" to "put in your hard work and have a high chance of success; be a poor lazy welfare wart on the ass of society and go nowhere".
The problem is they don't need to make sure of anything because there's plenty of investment from other countries to take advantage of. We live in a global economy, and we should be investing in our competitiveness.
The only reason not to outsource is: Our local talent is better. The outsourcing problem is entirely wage-based: $50,000/year for American programmers versus $15,000/year for Indian programmers. If the Indian programmers are essentially on parity with Americans, or at least close enough, then you're better off working at McDonalds because you won't have college debt. If businesses want to hire American programmers at above-McDonalds wages, then ... well, see above.
Can you try to not argue against what is exactly in front of you?
Can you explain what a computer is? For example: Can you explain why a cell phone isn't a computer--despite having computer pieces--but a smart phone is? Can you explain why a wifi card isn't a computer, even though it's running an operating system managing software and hardware?
This is the same public education problem. If you provide universal education--that is, provide for a way for everyone to buy into education on their own--then what you get is market speculation by students, which often fails. For example: now again we have a need for programmers because things like Roku are becoming popular and we want to build more Android and iOS apps for phones and smart TVs; everyone in the world will want to be a programmer for those $90k, $110k, $150k salaries, and then in 5 years there will be so many programmers that none of them can get a job because some 10% of them filled all the slots and got $60k salaries out of it to boot.
The summary directly acknowledges that, short on a crop of self-made resources, businesses are buying into low-experience, low-training wannabe poor kids who can't afford college degrees and then supplying career development. Which is something I've said again and again: universal access to education doesn't provide greater upward mobility for the poor; it forces them to speculate, which gives them a hit-or-miss chance of success if they bother putting in the hard work to become career-worthy, which only the rich can manage to absorb in the case of landing in the "not useful because saturated market" bin. Government-backed loans and government-provided vocational education is bad for the poor.
I mean christ, I'm looking right at it. Right here. Do you see this? This is what happens when not enough people can get an education: the businesses need these educated kids to succeed, and not enough rich kids have those degrees and those skills, so the businesses grab anyone who can absorb those skills and makes sure they get it. Because hell if I'm going to lose market share to that goat fucker Cogswell when he publishes an iOS app selling his cogs to a huge market I can't reach.
My supervisor used to burn himself DVDs of peoples' home porn.
The only reason for this "Hot Mix" thing you speak of is to take advantage of the human predisposition to favor a slightly higher sound pressure level as better quality. If a sound is overall 0.2dB louder, it will be considered better quality.
These sorts of mixes lose dynamic range and shrink the noise floor. Such shit.
There is always resistance to change. That is a fundamental truth; all diplomacy, negotiation, and theories of attaining buy-in are founded on the idea that nobody likes change unless they came up with the idea. Even when you're actively in pain, a change to correct that pain is accepted mostly because of the pain; it is on the whole unpalatable, but at the moment that is a lesser concern.
And of course Congress is filled with nutjobs. The problem with implementing this isn't Congress: a coalition of enough Americans will put them in their place, whether you want to believe that or not; the number required is just rather high. I refer you to marijuana legislation. In any case, the problem implementing this is more of getting a neutral document written; anyone involved in the process is well-positioned to create something favorable to themselves, after all.