It appears that "non-profit" schools as well have responded to the increased loan $ available over the past couple of decades by raising tuition to absorb all of it - which is a big part of why graduates are in so much debt.

Any school accepting governent-tied money should have to pass this test.

Who said they (those particular "experts"). should be ignored? I will say that their words shouldn't be blindly accepted without question.

Other experts don't agree. Our own military has a policy of 21-day quarantine for troops returning from Ebola-stricken regions. Other African countries have imposed travel restrictions that have helped stop its spread within their borders.

And I did RTFA. Limiting travel doesn't have to mean their interpretation of it (forbidding flights from/to certain places). For starters, I'd restrict visas for non-US naionals from those places, regardless of where their particular flight originated. I'd restrict non-essential travel to those places (medical aid workers would count as essential).

Finally, asking people who have been in close contact with Ebola patients to quarantine if at all symptomatic isn't unreasonable.

We've had problems a few times with systemd (usually the next boot after an upgrade to a package). Without exception, the failed boot occured with next-to-no meaningful error on the console and was more difficult to debug than if it had been using sysvinit. I personally, as a sysadmin for ~16 years, don't see a problem with sysvinit that justifies tearing it out of Linux for a more complicated, more opaque replacement.

People begin to assume that the experts don't know everything when three of the Ebola patients here are medical professionals, two of whom had specific experience treating Ebola.

So it's clear that they aren't omniscient, and the cost of keeping someone in their home, or of limiting non-critical travel, compared to risking more lives here, is trivial.

What an oversimplified analogy. Limiting certain people's travel from Western African countries doesn't mean limiting aid to those places.

First, to be clear: It's illegal to distribute a tool primarily intended to circumvent DRM only if it "has limited commercially significant other uses or is marketed for the anti-circumvention purpose".

And yeah, I agree that it's stupid.

It is not illegal (in the US) to circumvent copy protection (DRM) if it's not for the primary purpose of violating copyright.

Isn't converting legitimately owned content from one medium to another covered under fair use?

Ban "Assault Lathes"!

There's a difference between actually generating revenue in a place (say, selling copies of Office) and using your "shuffling" and "loopholes" to make revenue end up somewhere else on paper. Whatever your preconceptions, it's clear that the US tax policy is different than nearly every other country. When $ can't be brought into the US without penalty, less will be spent/invested here.

There is another bunch of idiots who think in terms of " 'not confiscating more lawfully earned/obtained money from people' is synonymous with 'putting more money into [their] hands' "

Only the US charges income tax on profits from foreign subsidiaries which have already been taxed abroad. Besides being unfair, such a disincentive to bring the money into the US obviously discourages the spending and employing here that could be done with it.

I think this over-the-top PC trend is mostly shallow self-crongratulatory (or self-flagellating) mental masturbation - and the groups engaging in it are in their own feedback loop, in frenzied agreement with each other. It's like blaming domestic volence on old silent movies where the good guy saves the woman ties to the railroad tracks.

BUT

Threats and intimidation are wholly unacceptable responses to pretty much *any* idea or (non-violent) opinion or position. Such a response to something that might seem shallow and silly is not only unacceptable, but has the unintended consequence of giving credibility to the silliness.

Why not just give them multiple SIM cards?

RTFA - there's no association with the Koch boogeymen other than that the president of the "astroturf group" used to work for a group which did have Koch ties.

The author of the article expressly states that he doesn't know who funds the group. Its title is inaccurate and irresponsible.

Perfect: Adam Smith supports a flat tax ("The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state"). Do you?