Depends on what your domain of knowledge is.

If you want to get a good grip on something like say, sociology, learning with and from people who understand the finer nuances of the subject matter are important.

Besides, it's not like being self-taught doesn't have it's own perils either.

I'm not discounting self-education. If you can self educate? Great! But there's value in formal education, and while I'd hire a programmer who was self taught, I'm not hiring a self-taught lawyer.

I feel really sorry for you if you think that education is just someone sitting down and absorbing knowledge with out having someone there to answer questions and fill in the gaps that may be left for whatever reason.

It's almost as if there's a greater context to why Apple did the things they did and maybe the super nerds are wrong about apple needing to be more "open."

Actually the idea that someone knows better than I do about how policy works is the basic idea behind representative Government.

Also, Government dependency claims are complete bullshit.

Very few of the people who are enough to qualify for SNAP or TANF or any other assistance sit there and go, "THIS IS GREAT! I don't have shit to do."

Do you know who the actual productive people are in this country? People at the bottom end of the spectrum. American productivity at lower and middle class levels are at insanely all time highs.

Also you're being extremely classist with your assertions about what it's like to be extremely poor. It's easy to take care of an apartment or a house when you've got money to burn on replacing the windows, fixing the walls and maintaining a domicile. It's much harder to do that when you've got no money and the Super doesn't give a shit.

The reason why poor students fail to take advantage of primary education is that life when you're poor *sucks.* It makes it hard to concentrate when your parents are fighting about the rent and no one's home to help out.

You don't fixing that problem by getting rid of the safety net. You fix that problem by making it less shitty to be poor. You're proposing we make it more shitty to be poor because fuck those poor people they're not thankful enough that we let them be poor.

The only reason why this would happen isn't because of fiat currencies, it's because of poor Governance. It's not an inevitability that our financial system will collapse. Any system run by morons will collapse.

The problem is, is that we do need to spend more on things like infrastructure, including schools. Including higher education. These things are falling apart and wise spending now can pay off huge in the future.

We also need to raise taxes.

And then your studio shits out something like Assassin's Creed: Unity.

This article discusses fiat currency but doesn't discuss Brazil's amazing success it had with the URV and now with the Real?

Economics are an abstraction of the ability for an community to trade goods and services with other communities; whether it's backed by gold or fiat. Really, all economies are fiat since the amount of gold that equals a loaf of bread is entirely arbitrary.

Existence of debt doesn't matter. Total debt matters. We might be on the wrong side of the ledger, but to think that we should get to zero and stay at zero is a disaster waiting to happen. To say that we can't do some social program because we've got debt also is a disaster waiting to happen. We can lower the debt and offer social services to the citizenry if we ... raise taxes and close tax loopholes.

I know, shocking! Taking in money then spending that money for something else! It's amazing, there's another article on the frontpage about how Germany is just flat out doing as I suggested and paying for university and college. They're getting great returns for their investment.

Yet, in America, we have people in positions of serious power who believe that Governments are about as capable as a 2 year old child and must be shrunk down small enough to be drowned in a bathtub.

Do we know when Vulkan was conceived? The trademark for Vulkan was filed in February, so... I don't know the behind the scenes dynamics at Khronos or Apple.

Metal has been worked on since at least 2013, when the betas for iOS 8 were being written. Metal as an API has been ready to ship since iOS 8 came out. Vulkan's still in the proof of concept stage and might replace or augment Metal in the future.

Is Vulkan ready yet?

Because Metal has been shipping since iOS 8 and usable now.

Microsoft has their own API but you're not crying foul about DirectX

Back in 2008...

Symbian code signing was like 200 bucks every six months(So 400 a year!) back in the Symbian days and you got little to no support.

BlackBerry signing was a little complicated and had three tiers of API usage, each tier costing $100.

Qualcomm had their own requirements that was something like 100 apps for 400 bucks for use on the Verizon game store.

So in 2008 when Apple announced that it was going to only cost $100 bucks for unlimited apps and all public APIs with a storefront that you could make money on, it was a godsend.

Apple sheep here(I own 3 daring fireball shirts, so I think that should establish my sheep cred here).

It's marketing pablum. It's not slower, and really, that's more than what I can say for other OS upgrades.

errr. no?

You're assuming that we completely pay off the debt. That's a really bad idea, because that's just getting our balance sheet to completely zero for no good reason other than the fact that zero is an arbitrary round number.

Having debt and being able to create debt is a good thing, because it allows for money to flow in and out of the system. Having some debt on hand shows that we're serious about trading on our obligation and allows us to borrow when we need money. It also means that when we face inflationary periods we can put all of that extra money somewhere and plug the hole.

Being able to meet our debt obligations and having a debt small enough where our obligations are not onerous on our budget is what's important. Not being free of it.

Finance at the national level isn't anything close to what finance is like at the personal level. Even then, having some credit lines open and having some debt on the books is a good idea. Maybe not thousands and thousands of dollars worth, but most of us will own a home or have a credit card or two that's got some debt on it.

if you want to know why Apple is beating the pants out of everyone else in the computing industry, it's because they give a shit about those touchy feelie humanities stuff.

The purpose of "higher education" is two fold. It is to get you a prescribed training to get you a specific skill set to perform job duties as required. The second part, is to get you a piece of paper, proving you've completed said prescribed training.

No it's not. You're just stating it. Show me where "getting a job" is part of any college's charter that isn't a for profit school.

Again, you're confusing education with training. It's not just training. It's about learning about the larger world around you. What you're looking for is vocational school, not college.

A person can do all such things without going to college. Education doesn't always require a degree from a 4 or 8 year college program. The two part answer I gave above is relevant here. A degree in Women's Studies simply means you've completed the prescribed course. It doesn't mean you understand women. I am not even sure that is possible (JK)

You need jesus. And a few classes in Women's Studies.

Why? Why should I pay for some idiot to get a degree in Woman's Studies? One that you have already admitted being economically worthless? Government paid education sounds great, until you factor in economic viability of those degrees. Government sucks at economics.

Why? Because that's what they want to study. There's more to life than money. We already do 12 years of Government paid education. Why is another 4 impossible?

Government is *great* at economics, btw. I don't know where you're coming up with that. Actually Government is only as good at economics as the people who run it. But it's not this economically destructive force you paint it to be. Having the Federal and/or State/Municipal Government pay for education at institutions they're already supporting isn't a huge leap.

Here is the test. If a person (or business) fails, that person pays for it. If Government fails, everyone pays more. There is no incentive to prevent government failures, just raise taxes (all taxes are regressive)

That's a crappy test. If we have less people with quality college level educations and more people with crappy loan debt then that's the test.

Because having a bunch of janitors who are philosophy majors means that when it comes time to vote, we aren't going to elect a bunch of morons next go around because we have a generation of people who find it pleasurable and worth their while to be educated on the merits of education.

Also it means that being a janitor isn't such a bad job when you don't have to worry about student loan payments eating into your income.