But how many people in the U.S. acquire HIV or AIDS in a hospital setting? That's a much better comparison for how Ebola is transmitted.

It's not a problem. It's a feature.

I would add that many disciplines are recognizing the importance of statistics and are therefore introducing applied statistics courses for [discipline X]. This causes a drop in enrollment in the pure statistics courses, thus decreasing the number of pure statistics instructors, thus decreasing the demand for individuals trained in pure statistics. In this way statistics is losing itself as a discipline and is quickly becoming specialized into various disciplines (e.g., the application of statistics for medical research).

Add: Filter by OS version. I have an older device and it is really irritating to find most apps won't even load on it (especially after taking the time to search for something and review its features).

I've never had a disc processed on a Saturday. Frankly, I didn't think they even did this. So yes, I am now outraged that I no longer have access to a feature that I've never used!

There are plenty of benefits that can be found from data mining. Lots of research, for example, uses data mining to identify trends, patterns, relationships, etc. that are then used to develop and test hypotheses.

So it's not data mining that's the problem, rather, it's the way some corporations and institutions use data mining for their best interest and not in the best interest of those whose data they have.

Tossing the niche channels would, presumably, increase viewership on the non-niche channels, thereby making them more profitable. Seems like there could be substantial savings for the consumer. I know I'm not supposed to respond to AC, but, again, the logic makes no sense.

This reasoning makes no sense. If it's a niche market, then there are other ways of reaching that market than making the masses pay for it. (Have they, perhaps, heard of the internet?) Further, I am guessing that most niche channels make their profit off advertising, not subscriber fees. So they would have a very low (or even negative) monthly cost to subscribers. These niche channels could even be "sweeteners" that the cable companies offer as a competitive advantage over each other.

If I wanted the same thing that cable TV provides, I'd buy cable TV. But this isn't about Netflix - they are just the first since they use so much bandwidth. Rather, it's about who gets to decide what is delivered to your computer at what speed. Today the argument is over Netflix. But tomorrow it could be CNN. Or Slashdot. Or YouTube. Or Facebook. It's bad for consumers because it will cost you more for the services you like and use and it discourages competition (just wait and see what "doesn't work" when Comcast decides they want to start a streaming video service).

A good lease is better than buying a bad used car. Buying a good used car is better than a bad lease. Buying a new car is better than buying a bad used car. Walking, biking, or taking the bus is even better if you want to save money.

In general, buying anything on time is a bad deal - especially if can't afford it!

Besides, aren't most residents of Portland accustomed to consuming a little urine every now and then?

If he does, I have two Christmas wishes of my own:
the first would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing in the spirit of harmony and peace...
...and the second would be for $30 million a month to be given to me, tax-free, in a Swiss bank account.

(Thanks, Steve Martin!)

There's a tremendous amount of research that has been done on this very question. I refer you to Pascarella and Terinzini's 2005 book: How College Affects Students. At 848 pages, it comprehensively covers studies on every imaginable aspect of the college experience, summarizing how it affects students (it's not just a catchy title).

The short summary? College matters. And not just STEM degrees, either.

Here's a link to more information about the book. You can find it in your local library, too.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/v047/47.5davis.html

I think you misunderstand the accuracy of modern genetic testing. In most cases "markers" are identified that are associated with an increased risk of a condition or disorder. Increased risk != a guarantee that the person will develop the disorder or condition. Further, many (myself included) would consider screening for disorders or conditions (like alzheimer's) for which there is no cure and no benefit to early intervention in children unethical. (Once you become an adult, you are free to make your own choices.) Who is to say that living a life with an increased risk of _____ (alzheimer's, breast cancer, skin cancer, etc.) is not a life worth living?

It has nothing to do with what you want. It has everything to do with what they can sell. They make much more money on bundling the various "packages" together because it forces people to buy features they really don't want.