Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Democrat math: one section 8 guy makes $1millio (Score 1) 332

Yes, I know Harvard and other big name universities in the US give grants to a few poor kids, but mostly they're looking at rich kid's ability to pay the fees.

Well, not to shit on your parade, but most elite schools in the US (Ivy, MIT, CalTech) agreed to use need-blind admissions. They then offer need-based scholarships. These have ranged from stupid (MIT told a friend of mine she didn't qualify because her parents could sell their house) to generous (Brown).

And the majority of kids at Ivy League schools are on some amount of assistance. And even if they weren't, tuition only covers like 1/3 of the cost... the rest is borne by alumni/endowments.

Comment: Re:other people's money (Score 1) 332

By that argument then, you're also saying that the current "universal access fee" on telecom is 1000 times the actual cost of providing that service.

Nope. I didn't (as politicians don't) really segregate "set aside income streams" from the general treasury. I factored in, not the cost of him paying for his own broadband, but him not needing government assistance, and paying taxes.

Comment: Re:Democrat math: one section 8 guy makes $1millio (Score 1) 332

As you recall, the FCC also just redefined the word "broadband" to mean service which costs $85-$105 per month.

Well, it defined broadband as a specific speed. That speed costs different amounts at different locations. And based on the number of connections purchased. Some major cities you can get it for $20. It costs $9.25 by the article.

You think it's a good deal if you spend $1 million per year to encourage one guy to do online classes.

Well, leaving aside the 10x factor, yeah, I do. I mean, 100k to get someone off public assistance (food/shelter/health/etc) for their working years is a good return on the money.

Note that doesn't actually pay for the classes

Tons of free classes out there.

Did it occur to you that it would be cheaper to pay full tuition for TEN people who actually worked hard at school, proving that they want to be educated and they'll do the work in college?

I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Not everyone is close enough to a community college to be able to commute there and live at home. And I think second chances for people who fucked around in high school are supremely important. With a HS diploma, you can do something. Without one, you're living off tax dollars til you get a GED... at least

Certainly it didn't occur to you that the million bucks you want to spend is coming from my family

Maybe a nickle of it.- You want those who succeeded to pay a higher share, fine. I think it's a good idea to ask people who make billions to pay a little more in taxes.

I AM struggling to pay for my own college while supporting the family, while my wife waits for her turn to go to school when we can afford it.

You're not in a great spot, and I empathize. I think it shouldn't be so hard for you. But, I certainly don't think it's inherently noble for you to have to work so hard to succeed. Society shouldn't force you to. We should make it easier.

Damn you guys are bad at math and logic

You seem to think I have computational errors, or that I have logical errors. You didn't really point any out. But I will point out that you had factual errors, since I think that this statement opens that area of discussion.

Comment: Re: other people's money (Score 2) 332

assume a perfectly reasonable per month/subscriber cost of $25

$9.25, as per the article

a program that spends $[9,250]/month

Diverts the already being spent monies from being spent on a landline to a broadband connection

for two years ... an associate's degree

Well, by classes I intended more professional or at your own speed... so I didn't think it would take two years, But associates degrees take 18 months if you go straight through.

So, by your logic, that's 9.25 * 18 * 1000 = 166500. But, over a 20 year career ( short) if that person makes back 700/mo (not unreasonable, with $300 for foodstamps, $350 for section 8, $50 for medicaid) it pays for itself.

Seems good to me. I mean, not perfect, but self-substaining.

Comment: Re:jury duty and double jeopardy (Score 1) 80

Is this legit or is it an end-run around constitutional protections that everybody in the legal system has just collectively agreed on?

It's not an end-run. Crimes have a range of punishments. The punishment is to serve as a deterrent to both the offender in the future and society at large, to serve as rehabilitation for the offender, to isolate the offender from society, to hurt the offender to the degree to which the offender hurt society The last one have no relation previous offenses, but the first three do. If the criminal was convicted beforehand, it's pretty obvious that a minimum correction was ineffective at modifying behavior beforehand, so harsher punishment is called for. If the criminal was not convicted, but guilty, it indicates he is more a danger to society because he will do more damage before getting caught.

Okay, I think that the last part is pretty dubious. I have no issue with using previous convictions in the sentencing... I would probably have no issue with a trial resulting in a "probably" verdict that was not sufficient to punish at the time, but could be brought up at further sentencings. But accusations??

It's a tough issue

Comment: Re:Lemme guess (Score 1) 332

It's a benefit to society if government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options.

In addition, we recognize that universal access is important for some goods, even if we allow private alternates or supplements. Such as primary education.

Comment: Re:Book value of assets (Score 1) 335

Any accountant will tell you (and I am one) that there is no book value for assets like that unless they get sold

I'm confused. Coca-Cola bought it over time. And I thought you just told me book value was that paid for an asset. I know a giant loophole (at least in the 90's) was companies accounting for all their advertising (or international advertising maybe) as purchasing a depreciating asset (goodwill? brand? noteriety??) and then taking advantage of tax rebates that encouraged investment in assets. Then, writing off the cost over years.

Comment: Re:Something hilarious (Score 1) 335

I'm not saying psychic powers exist. I'm saying the Randi challenge is dumb.

Also, your response is dumb.

  1. You're assuming there are not stable populations that are psychic, possibly with taboos against breeding outside the group. (See, some rumors about gypsies)
  2. You assumed that this hypothetical psychic ability is genetic.
  3. You assume that this survival trait would lead to more children. In reality, it would lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies. Further, with the ability to avoid pregnancies lethal to the mother/child and the ability to avoid dangers, you would need far fewer children to ensure X reach adulthood.
  4. You assume that a competitive advantage would not reach equilibrium. See how lefthandness conveys and advantage in a right-handed world, and yet remains consistent at 10%
  5. You assume that people want to reproduce.
  6. You assume that psychic ability doesn't channel ectoplasm through your genitals and sterilize you.

It's not suggestive at all.

That said, I don't think it exists. You know, because of how physics seems to work.

Comment: Re:Something hilarious (Score 1) 335

The lottery uses balls that flip around willy-nilly. Telekineses would be really helpful.

But all the Randi challenge proves is that some abilities with low alternate value don't exist. But I don't even know what those abilities would be. For instance, buying land with water rights in the desert, and then reselling it (or oil, if that's what you can dowse for), would be extraordinarily profitable. But if everyone knew, you would never be able to buy anything.

Comment: Re:Price to book? (Score 1) 335

Book value is the amount the company could expect to sell its assets for, assuming odd things like "goodwill" being something you can auction off. Other subcategories of book value eliminate the non-transferable or intangible.

Q is based on how much it would cost to replace a company if you had to start from scratch.

These are different. In art, for instance, the cost a specific Picasso was determined at auction to be 180 million. That's its book value. I have no idea how it's replacement value is determined. Is it the few grand it would take to hire an accomplished painter to recreate it pretty well? The 55 grand it takes to use that machine reproduction thing some museums have experimented with? Or the cost of buying and holding a sufficient number of paintings such that in 75 years you had a seminal work of a major artist (minus the liquidation value of the rest of the works)?

Comment: Re:Something hilarious (Score 1) 335

Just like I've never met a psychic who won the lottery.

That's why Randi's contest always seemed like BS. I could make way more than a million dollars if I was psychic... but probably not if everyone knew I was. Maybe, if my descendants were non-psychic, I would admit it on my deathbed.

Comment: Re:Economics is a science! (Score 1) 335

Always looking backwards, always telling us *why* something happened, never making future predictions.

That's just false. Stagflation in the 70's was predicted by some theories but not others. The theories that did not predict stagflation were scrapped or modified. The fact that it takes 10+ years of watching to decide between two competing models is annoying, but does not mean that predictions are not made. You just cannot show it in a classroom, like with fruit flies that breed once a day to show genetics/adverse selection.

Nothing happens.

Working...