I think international enrollment may very well start to be a thing.

But I would point out that in Europe, there's people crossing countries on a daily basis just commuting to work, while in the US, there are families who haven't left the country except for brief vacations, or not at all. Living in the US is all they know, and all they want, and the parents are already twisted up inside about having their kids leave home, to consider sending them halfway around the world adds to their stress.

For many years college has been seen as the indispensable class gateway to access the middle-class life. No introductory price could be high enough to offset the prosperity the graduates would see on in their career. This vision changed VERY suddenly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

The cost of college grew at a lightning pace since the time the parents had gone to college, the kids had never dealt in financial matters, and the intangible debts accrued were a problem for the future when the kids would already be enjoying a successful career that would allow them to pay it down...except that with the recent financial crisis and recent-graduate employment rates falling off a cliff as recently laid-off middle-age workers are taking up entry-level positions, the young graduates found themselves with significant debt but without the middle-class career path they'd counted on to help pay down that debt. I think that international enrollment will indeed grow in response to this problem unless something else is done to address it. It's just that this problem had hit so suddenly that the culture of choosing colleges hasn't shifted quickly enough to keep up. Colleges transformed from a gold mines to minefields in a short time span. We're seeing the opinions shifting now though.

It's important to bear in mind that the massive spike in tuition is at least, a progressive pricing structure (though it has its flaws and gaps). US colleges defend their pricing by saying that the ridiculously high tuition is the list price that gets charged to the more affluent families, and that inflated price helps allow for tuition discounts to the less affluent families to get into the college.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...

There is some nuance to that pricing structure. TL;DR, if a student goes to a reputable STEM college to major in STEM, then that high tuition is funding the salaries of famous professors and their projects that make your STEM college reputable (and your degree as well). If a student goes to that college to major in art history, they're probably going to get a very bad deal out of it.

Part of it could be their parental leave policies. These tech companies like to hire talented young people. Some of those young people will want to have kids.

So if you're looking at 2 equally qualified candidates that are 30 yrs old. One will be taking 7 weeks of paid vacation in the next few years, the other will be taking 18 weeks of paid vacation in the next few years. Well, why not just take the one who's going to be around more?

Now, I didn't specify if either candidates was male or female, but I think we all know which one is going to create less disruption when they have a kid. This kind of difference between the genders is pervasive throughout the country's culture. The assumption that the female will be taking care of kid more than the male is already codified in every company's parental leave policy.

Here's the solution: Give them both equal parental leave. It reduces the benefits of gender discrimination.

It eliminates an ingrained assumption woman as the primary caregiver for children, and opens up the opportunity to view these two hypothetical candidates as equals. Because in practical terms for the hiring manager, they aren't equals.

Thanks, that's an encouraging and illuminating insight on the low-card/high fat approach. I think I'll give it a try and see how it works out for me. I've lost some weight after resuming regular gym attendance, but I've been finding it really hard to stay under my calorie restrictions when I get pangs of hunger, low energy, and moodswings. Perhaps limiting the carbs to temper the peaks/valleys of my bloodsugar level is just what I need.

This feels like a significant setback for moderation. The GOP has been losing national elections already and talk of re-evaluating their pitch as a party had already begun, now the sitting members of the party just got jolted by this event and can be expected to pull hard right to tighten their base at home, rather than moderate to try to build rapport with the moderate independent voters as a national party.

The way things are going, the GOP will trend even farther right-wing, and may lose even more ground as a party. And where does that leave us? An unchallenged Democrat party against the remains of an ultra-conservative GOP?
1) It leaves pretty much everyone right of the middle marginalized and unable to find representation.
2) It leaves 1 party unchecked, that's just plain bad for American voters.
3) It completely stops legislation for the next several years.

Many people expected that the GOP's right-wing pull would need to get worse before it got better, and I had hoped that it already happened. Now it'll have to get a lot worse before the shock to the GOP can be absorbed and the party can build the will to give up the support of the far right to try to vie for the middle.

T-mobile has indeed been on a roll with upgrading it's network.

It's interesting to note that this was made possible by a $3bil cash infusion from AT&T because AT&T failed to complete their attempted acquisition of T-mobile a few years ago. So even if Sprint fails to complete their merger attempt, they obviously won't have to pay up quite as much, but they're likely to have to fork over something, which could result in even more expansion of T-mobile's network.

(I'm a current t-mobile customer and the coverage is quite decent in the northern NJ/NYC area, I too have noticed coverage in areas around me moving up from 3G to LTE service).

I'll also add that AT&T's failed attempt to acquire T-mobile, resulted in AT&T having to hand over $3 billion in cash to T-mobile for failure to complete the merger, allowing for the very significant LTE rollout to major metropolitan areas that has allowed T-mobile to obtain the dramatic increase in customers and brand improvement they've seen in the past few years.

If Sprint acquisition of T-mobile fails, they probably won't be handing over $3bil since Sprint is a much smaller player in the market than AT&T, but there's a good chance that they'll have to cough up a considerable amount of cash to T-mobile too (these merger-failure contingencies are common since the acquiree has to open up it's books and business plans to a competitor in good faith expectation that the merger will succeed).

If we're dealing in the comic universe, and arguing from the viewpoint of those trapped inside, the justification that all databases WILL be compromised requires 4th wall perspective that only a select few characters have.

Really, the idea that super-villains will always be able to defeat anything the super-heroes can cobble up has little support within the universe, because the heroes constantly win against ludicrously slim odds...and do so with ridiculous regularity. They laugh while leaping into their apparent doom because they'll survive largely unscathed as they have many many times before. Their bravado has been supported by experience. From the viewpoint of the superheroes within that universe, It's just as feasible for the superheroes to cobble up insane security measures that could not conceivably be broken by any entity interested in earthly affairs. It's only the readers like you and I that know that comic authors only detail the complexity and robustness of a security system only to have it breached shortly afterward. But for the heroes, that's not a factor they can conceive, and it shouldn't be influencing their opinion on the matter unless they have 4th wall perspective.

For example, pick any superhero with a secret known by someone other than themselves, or documented outside of their own mind. The fact that secrets still exist in that universe shows that they can indeed be preserved. Even Spiderman's identify after being made public, was made secret again. The mutant registration act could just as easily succeed as it could fail. And given the heroes vs. villain track record, it should lean heavily in the direction of success from the viewpoint of the heroes. Hell, it's being pushed by the illuminati, masters of science, technology, magic, heck, reality itself was subject to their will.

If we want to go really really meta, then we should know that we'd never have the secret identify of every marvel superhero revealed to the world because it would derail far too many character arcs and make for bad reading. Leaks would be limited at best to C and D-level characters, or somehow retconned if it somehow happened to major characters.

I agree, the mutant registration was puffed up to be this big bad thing, but really, it's not unlike registering a firearm, and requiring that people walking around with guns have at least had some training in how to properly handle a gun, in order to prevent harm to themselves and to others. Even gun control activists would agree that proper firearms training is essential.

As for the active use of powers, the mutant registration act wanted them to register and answer for using their powers, like a cop deciding to use his gun. If the mutant doesn't want to actively use their powers and just go about their business like a normal person, that's fine, it's like leaving the gun holstered instead of popping it off willy nilly.

OTOH if you launch 1st generation product that's flawed just enough that there's no interest in a 2nd generation product, all of the development effort was wasted, and none of the feedback will make any difference since the opportunity has been lost.

Right now they have only mild interest in the 1st generation product to begin with, even if all of the promised features are fully realized.

Really, the "Steam Machine" isn't terribly exciting, it's just a branded PC. I don't see any realistic scenario where the Steam Machine makes an impact on the industry.

SteamOS is useful to me, since I play PC games on my TV, and further development to expand Big Picture mode into a full OS experience would be very welcome because a windows UI is horribly clunky for use on a TV. But even as one of the few people in their very niche market for this product, I'm not all that excited about it. My setup works already, though SteamOS might help, it won't be a full replacement for a long time(if ever).

The new controller is the most interesting piece since it may widen the types of games that can be playable with a controller on a couch. I have a rising coffee table and full keyboard and mouse, but I'll gladly take opportunities to play more comfortably with a controller so long as I'm not trying to play a game competitively.

I "believe" in evolution, because I don't have a deep enough knowledge of the theory's mechanics and the primary evidence to form what I'd need to really know it evolution to be true on a factual basis. For the most part, I'm simply accepting evolution to be true on the authority of experts. There's probably quite a lot of other people like me who accept scientifically derived facts based on an apparently high consensus among experts.

I'm taking comfort in the belief that if I were so inclined (and had the wherewithal to do so), I could directly examine supporting evidence that establishes this information as fact. It's an important distinction from a belief in religion which, even if it were somehow testable, makes no guarantees about holding up under direct observation.

The problem with the VAST majority of criticisms against drone warfare is this: /They don't cite alternatives./

If an author has a problem with intervention policy. THAT is what the author should be targeting! Drones are incidental to the intervention policy and are off-point. If the goal is to persuade the audience against intervention, then the subject of intervention needs to be directly addressed.

If an author has a problem with drone warfare itself, then present the alternatives. If "boots on the ground" is a more effective way to ensure surgical precision and minimal collateral damage, advocate for that and present the supporting arguments, and preemptively address the counter-argument of the potential for taking casualties along the way as a necessary cost of preserving civilian life and reducing the amount of backlash that creates new terrorists. If the author believes that counterintelligence and local partnerships is more effective, then THAT should also be presented, citing past successes in reducing insurgency and improvements to civilian quality of life.

But if the author has a beef with drone warfare, and presents no alternatives, then they leave the massive hole in their argument of "If not drones, then what?". If the perception of drones is that they kill enemies and prevent us from losing soldiers in the process, and the author wants to do away with drones, then the audience is left to wonder: "Is this author really suggesting that we should lose our soldiers for no good reason, when we could have used drones instead?" Address that question head on!

This happened at my previous job, it was about a quarter-mile walk to get to the coffee in the cafeteria (no free coffee). The bathrooms over there were also much cleaner since they were more inconvenient to reach, (so of course I took the extra walk for a cleaner toilet). Took about 10 minutes to walk there and back. It adds up over the course of the day.

Isn't Twitch the official streaming app for the XboxOne? (Isn't there something there with PS4 too?)

I bet the deals that allowed those service hooks to happen helped lock-in some positive margin on those users.

Oh, and why do you want to prevent Jedis from having kids when using the Force is apparently an inherited trait?

I saw an interesting fantheory on this subject. To summarize, his theory was that the secret origin of the Jedi order is that force sensitives were growing in number across the galaxy due to the force sensitivity being a heritable trait. The power of the force easily lent itself to megalomaniacal personality development (essentially random people discovering themselves to be akin to gods among men). In order to resolve this growing issue. The Jedi Order was formed as a means of controlling the growth of the force sensitive population, by indoctrinating them with celibacy to cut down on the volume and potency of Force Sensitives in the galaxy, and avoid a need for mass genocide from the fearful majority of non-force sensitives, as well as avoiding too many power-mad force users. Over time, the overarching reason for the formation of the Jedi Order was lost over time, and all that they remember is the specific teachings of celibacy and self-discipline. Force users who simply embraced the gift of the force and welcomed the power it brought were labeled as the enemies of the Jedi Order, and called "Sith" by the Jedi.

I'm fine with Windows 8 too. I think the hate stems primarily from people who are attached to using the start menu. If you're not among those that use the pre-windows 8 start menu on a regular basis, there just isn't much that has changed in windows 8.

I like the new task manager, and the winkey+type to search functionality. Occasionally I mount a virtual ISO in windows 8 without needing a standalone program. I still don't know how to use their tile screen very well, but I pinned my shortcuts or placed them on the desktop, and I don't need to both with their tile screen. Overall, not a lot of benefit to windows 8 over windows 7, but also not a lot of downside. It was just $15 to get a legitimate windows license for a new PC I'd put together so I went with windows 8.