Then what is to stop every graduate from simply declaring bankruptcy when they graduate and be back in the good graces of the financial industry by the time they hit their early 30s - but with no debt and 7 years of saved income?
Because in theory bankruptcy should only be issued by a court when it is needed- you can't just rock up to a court and ask for one without proof that you're genuinely destitute.
Actually, showing up at Court, with $100K+ in debt, no assets, and a $20K/yr job would qualify you for bankruptcy - a situation many graduates would find themselves in if they went out and found a job waiting tables. You have debts far in excess of your assets and no reasonable income stream to pay off the debt. So if you could declare bankruptcy to clear educational loans, you could get your degree, take a job delivering pizzas, and in 6 months declare bankruptcy - as you have lots of debt, no assets, and no means to pay off your debt. Then, after your Chapter 7 clears, go get a "real" job based on your degree and walk away making bank.
FULLY AGREED. The problem is that the State and the educational industry is in cahoots to keep it rolling nice and tight for their own benefits - not that of their customers (the general public).
Actually, delaying the approval or denial of his patent is the injustice here. Justice should relate to the proper execution of the law, not about whether or not someone thinks it's good or bad for society. We are a nation of laws, and that is the foundation of justice - a consistent set of rules by which we live.
Patents further the advantages of large companies more than independent entities by their very nature.
I dunno, I make a pretty good living licensing out my patents. I make more from licensing than I do from my regular "day" job (which I do because I love doing it) - enough to live comfortably. And that includes having monster CE/tech licensees including Microsoft...
You mean like a mortgage or taxes, then. I guess if you want an education and don't make the payments, it's awfully hard to "repossess" the education, unlike a home or car or other goods. Would the solution be to allow bankruptcy to fully discharge school debts? Then what is to stop every graduate from simply declaring bankruptcy when they graduate and be back in the good graces of the financial industry by the time they hit their early 30s - but with no debt and 7 years of saved income?
It can't be discharged by any bankruptcy proceedings. You are hooked for life once you take a loan in this form. We abolished debtors prisons sometime around 1800s, then indentured labor then fought a civil war to end slavery. Then created a debt that can survive even bankruptcy chaining the earnings of someone for life!
Curious statement! How are chaining the earnings of someone for life? You can't pay off your education loans? Aren't they put on a payment schedule that covers a 10 to 15 year period, meaning that you should have them paid off in your 30s? And theoretically it would be a benefit as the supposed income increase from the degree should offset the loans in the first place...
Education loans are backed by the Government using tax dollars. Back taxes are also exempt from bankruptcy. Most things the Government gets its financial hooks into you for are only removed by paying back the obligation to the Government,
Well, there can be multiple lines. I'm elite with Alaska Air and Delta. Prior to Global Entry/TSA Pre, I could use their shorter "business/elite" line. It short-circuited the long line to check your ID - but you still had the full "remove everything/millimeter scanner" search. With TSA Pre, not only do you get the shorter ID check line, you also get relaxed security screening. No removal of shoes and belts or thin coats, no need to pull the laptops out of the bag. Basically back to how it as pre-9/11.
Interesting. Seems to be a kiosk that works like Global Entry - and based upon the application cost and information, this appears to be an addition to TSAPre which you can already get. It's a private company working in addition to TSA, not replacing the TSA.
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
The inside joke is that the TSA is simply an employment program for the Federal Government. It's about hiring hundreds of people at all the big airports. It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.
What company is that? I signed up for Global Entry (I travel internationally a dozen or more times a year), and got a free TSAPre account as well - meaning I can use the short lines. But only because I went through a full Government background check.
Facebook has 1 billion users. How many of those already use WhatsApp? My guess is the vast majority. If Facebook had built their own, they would have started with a potential user-base over twice that of WhatsApp, and probably containing the vast majority of the new user base they just bought.
The US interstate system was started in 1956 by President Eisenhower. How did people get from where you live to Chicago prior to that? The Interstates (I-80 and I-90) didn't exist.
The researcher who found the bug is Adam Langley. CIA headquarters is in Langley, Virginia.
Coincidence? I think not!
Adam Langley is an anagram of "A lang madly e". Clearly this is the product of some leet Canadian insider who has gone rouge with this disclosure. Time to put on a new layer of tinfoil.
Great - can you steer me to one of those datasets which shows an increase in temperature over the last 17 or so years? UAH, RSS, HADCRUT4/5, GISS - all show a flat or slight decline. I'm not aware of another dataset which shows otherwise - even though lots of people claim they are out there.
As far as trusting one (or in this case, two) scientists versus all those others - they seem to simply report data (in the case of Dr. Spencer) and draw conclusions from it, rather than just using models and cherry picking data to fit (for example, Mann's famous single tree to create the entire hockey-stick issue - Yamal 6, the Tree of Destiny). And the model by Dr. Easterbrook not only matches the past, but correctly predicted the current stall in temperatures. Of course, it's not dominated/driven by CO2 so that makes it somewhat heretical in today's climate circles, but the fact remains - it actually matches history and correctly predicted the current stall (whereas not a single IPCC-approved model did so).
There is that famous Einstein quote about the number of scientists needed to disprove his theory - just one. Well, we have two here who actually disprove the vast majority of accepted/pushed climate science. The actual data doesn't match any of the predictions made - and the one model that does match the data is driven predominantly by natural oscillations in the oceans. At what point would you decide the current models are wrong?
After all, Phil Jones, Richard Lindzen, and Pat Michaels (all noted climatologists from the pro-AGW side of things) have identified the trend starting about 17 years ago. So the trend does exist, and per a respected climatologist, it's plenty long to identify as an independent trend - separate the signal from the noise.
PS: in accordance with standard AGW-supporter techniques, you can only disagree with the 17 year claim if you, in fact, are a PhD climatologist. They are apparently the only ones who can speak authoritatively on issues related to climate. Otherwise you need to have credentialed climatologists who state that the trend does not exist, or that the 17 year period is not suitable for identifying climate trends.
Please check the link. You'll see the average IPCC model misses measured data by 0.6 deg C; the vast majority of models are off by 0.4 deg C or more. Given that there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over a projected 1 deg C change over the next half century, I'd say an error of 0.4 deg C over 17 years is significant.
Now there IS ONE model that actually got the current stall spot-on. Of course, that model doesn't rely upon CO2, and it's not by a climatologist (just a geologist), so many discount it. But considering he nailed the stall - and has a rational, reasonable explanation as well, it is worth considering.
What dataset are you using to show the planet is getting warmer? RSS, HADCRUT4/HADCRUT5, GISS, UAH) all show temperature stalled for at least 17 years (actually, a few show a slight negative trend - RSS and UAH show approximately -0.2 deg C per century cooling trend over the last 17 years).
Slashdot Mirror
Then what is to stop every graduate from simply declaring bankruptcy when they graduate and be back in the good graces of the financial industry by the time they hit their early 30s - but with no debt and 7 years of saved income?
Because in theory bankruptcy should only be issued by a court when it is needed- you can't just rock up to a court and ask for one without proof that you're genuinely destitute.
Actually, showing up at Court, with $100K+ in debt, no assets, and a $20K/yr job would qualify you for bankruptcy - a situation many graduates would find themselves in if they went out and found a job waiting tables. You have debts far in excess of your assets and no reasonable income stream to pay off the debt. So if you could declare bankruptcy to clear educational loans, you could get your degree, take a job delivering pizzas, and in 6 months declare bankruptcy - as you have lots of debt, no assets, and no means to pay off your debt. Then, after your Chapter 7 clears, go get a "real" job based on your degree and walk away making bank.
FULLY AGREED. The problem is that the State and the educational industry is in cahoots to keep it rolling nice and tight for their own benefits - not that of their customers (the general public).
So what's the problem with just paying it off, as I originally suggested?
Actually, delaying the approval or denial of his patent is the injustice here. Justice should relate to the proper execution of the law, not about whether or not someone thinks it's good or bad for society. We are a nation of laws, and that is the foundation of justice - a consistent set of rules by which we live.
Patents further the advantages of large companies more than independent entities by their very nature.
I dunno, I make a pretty good living licensing out my patents. I make more from licensing than I do from my regular "day" job (which I do because I love doing it) - enough to live comfortably. And that includes having monster CE/tech licensees including Microsoft...
You mean like a mortgage or taxes, then. I guess if you want an education and don't make the payments, it's awfully hard to "repossess" the education, unlike a home or car or other goods. Would the solution be to allow bankruptcy to fully discharge school debts? Then what is to stop every graduate from simply declaring bankruptcy when they graduate and be back in the good graces of the financial industry by the time they hit their early 30s - but with no debt and 7 years of saved income?
It can't be discharged by any bankruptcy proceedings. You are hooked for life once you take a loan in this form. We abolished debtors prisons sometime around 1800s, then indentured labor then fought a civil war to end slavery. Then created a debt that can survive even bankruptcy chaining the earnings of someone for life!
Curious statement! How are chaining the earnings of someone for life? You can't pay off your education loans? Aren't they put on a payment schedule that covers a 10 to 15 year period, meaning that you should have them paid off in your 30s? And theoretically it would be a benefit as the supposed income increase from the degree should offset the loans in the first place...
Education loans are backed by the Government using tax dollars. Back taxes are also exempt from bankruptcy. Most things the Government gets its financial hooks into you for are only removed by paying back the obligation to the Government,
Lets say your parent or child was in desperate need of medical care that insurance will not pay for.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. He lives in America, and Obamacare fixed that...
It's OK, those kids studied law and became politicians.
Oh wait...
A REAL car mechanic would make a tire that is inherently balanced; no lead needed. I guess if you're second rate you can use the patch of weights...
Well, there can be multiple lines. I'm elite with Alaska Air and Delta. Prior to Global Entry/TSA Pre, I could use their shorter "business/elite" line. It short-circuited the long line to check your ID - but you still had the full "remove everything/millimeter scanner" search. With TSA Pre, not only do you get the shorter ID check line, you also get relaxed security screening. No removal of shoes and belts or thin coats, no need to pull the laptops out of the bag. Basically back to how it as pre-9/11.
Interesting. Seems to be a kiosk that works like Global Entry - and based upon the application cost and information, this appears to be an addition to TSAPre which you can already get. It's a private company working in addition to TSA, not replacing the TSA.
Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
The inside joke is that the TSA is simply an employment program for the Federal Government. It's about hiring hundreds of people at all the big airports. It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.
What company is that? I signed up for Global Entry (I travel internationally a dozen or more times a year), and got a free TSAPre account as well - meaning I can use the short lines. But only because I went through a full Government background check.
Facebook has 1 billion users. How many of those already use WhatsApp? My guess is the vast majority. If Facebook had built their own, they would have started with a potential user-base over twice that of WhatsApp, and probably containing the vast majority of the new user base they just bought.
The US Interstate Highway System started in 1956. Prior to that you had routes and highways, but not Federally-owned Interstates.
The US interstate system was started in 1956 by President Eisenhower. How did people get from where you live to Chicago prior to that? The Interstates (I-80 and I-90) didn't exist.
The researcher who found the bug is Adam Langley. CIA headquarters is in Langley, Virginia.
Coincidence? I think not!
Adam Langley is an anagram of "A lang madly e". Clearly this is the product of some leet Canadian insider who has gone rouge with this disclosure. Time to put on a new layer of tinfoil.
Mascara, even!
Great - can you steer me to one of those datasets which shows an increase in temperature over the last 17 or so years? UAH, RSS, HADCRUT4/5, GISS - all show a flat or slight decline. I'm not aware of another dataset which shows otherwise - even though lots of people claim they are out there.
As far as trusting one (or in this case, two) scientists versus all those others - they seem to simply report data (in the case of Dr. Spencer) and draw conclusions from it, rather than just using models and cherry picking data to fit (for example, Mann's famous single tree to create the entire hockey-stick issue - Yamal 6, the Tree of Destiny). And the model by Dr. Easterbrook not only matches the past, but correctly predicted the current stall in temperatures. Of course, it's not dominated/driven by CO2 so that makes it somewhat heretical in today's climate circles, but the fact remains - it actually matches history and correctly predicted the current stall (whereas not a single IPCC-approved model did so).
There is that famous Einstein quote about the number of scientists needed to disprove his theory - just one. Well, we have two here who actually disprove the vast majority of accepted/pushed climate science. The actual data doesn't match any of the predictions made - and the one model that does match the data is driven predominantly by natural oscillations in the oceans. At what point would you decide the current models are wrong?
This bug is the DC stinkbug. If ever there was a place that needed a bug that feeds on stink, that is it...
There are several datasets that show a long term warming trend.
Can you point me to one of those datasets, that shows warming over the last 17 years?
17 years is a clear attempt to cherry pick data as outlined in this Forbes article.
Nope. It's not cherry picking. Dr. Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore and UEA's CRU climate scientist explicitly stated that you need 17 years to identify a trend. That's a world-respected climatologist who's been unapologetic about his support for the AGW model. Well, we've surpassed his 17 year statement. Can we now identify a trend?
After all, Phil Jones, Richard Lindzen, and Pat Michaels (all noted climatologists from the pro-AGW side of things) have identified the trend starting about 17 years ago. So the trend does exist, and per a respected climatologist, it's plenty long to identify as an independent trend - separate the signal from the noise.
PS: in accordance with standard AGW-supporter techniques, you can only disagree with the 17 year claim if you, in fact, are a PhD climatologist. They are apparently the only ones who can speak authoritatively on issues related to climate. Otherwise you need to have credentialed climatologists who state that the trend does not exist, or that the 17 year period is not suitable for identifying climate trends.
Please check the link. You'll see the average IPCC model misses measured data by 0.6 deg C; the vast majority of models are off by 0.4 deg C or more. Given that there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over a projected 1 deg C change over the next half century, I'd say an error of 0.4 deg C over 17 years is significant.
Now there IS ONE model that actually got the current stall spot-on. Of course, that model doesn't rely upon CO2, and it's not by a climatologist (just a geologist), so many discount it. But considering he nailed the stall - and has a rational, reasonable explanation as well, it is worth considering.
Well, Dr. Mann was able to take a single tree (YAD061) and deduce that we were going to have a high hockey stick in temperatures.
Not a single IPCC5 model matches reality, nor even comes close. The real data disagrees with the models; which do we believe?
What dataset are you using to show the planet is getting warmer? RSS, HADCRUT4/HADCRUT5, GISS, UAH) all show temperature stalled for at least 17 years (actually, a few show a slight negative trend - RSS and UAH show approximately -0.2 deg C per century cooling trend over the last 17 years).