Wouldn't Walter White count as a chemical engineer?
Well, look at the areas he wants to deregulate. It's been pretty well established recently that regulation is what is causing broadband prices to go up. Take for example the laws that forbid municipal broadband - that is a regulation. Google Fiber has been able to do what it does because they've been able to convince local governments to throw out regulation. That city called Overland Park tried to pull up some red tape, so Google left them, and now their politicians likely aren't going to last another election as a result.
He's right: We need more local governments to remove legislative barriers to broadband deployment.
How so? Google knows people get it this way, and people distribute it this way out in the open, and google hasn't once threatened them with a lawsuit (unless they distribute it with a ROM, in which case they will do so.)
Trouble with this is the carriers won't be able to run national ads with their pricing. Instead the price will have to be concealed until you're about to sign up. Some states (Nevada) you pay around 7%, whereas others (I think NY?) it's 25%. I'm still trying to figure out why the government finds it necessary to make a cell phone so expensive to have, even if your income is shit.
I get tmobile for $23 a month per phone ($114 a month for 5 lines.) Everything is unlimited too.
That isn't true at all, actually. You as an individual can download and install Google's Play Services yourself if you'd like. What you can't do however is sell a device commercially that includes Google's Play Services unless you follow their terms.
More information here:
Hold on a sec we don't know if they're dead yet. I mean they could have been abducted by aliens you know.
I like best how the article states this:
New York living is expensive, Yes, but it comes with a free bonus if New York is where you want to be
Uh...."free" bonus? Yeah right, it's expensive as hell to live there. I get annoyed when groups like OWS complain because standard wages in most of the US, or even considered pretty high for most of the US, aren't enough to afford to live there. You can't expect to live among the world's elite yet expect to not pay like you're living among the world's elite. Dumbasses, all of them.
But you love that New York Living right? So you gotta live there anyways right? Good, then expect to pay for it.
No, that wouldn't work at all. All that does is put the domestic economy at a big disadvantage. People who ask for trade barriers don't understand that domestic production and imports rise and fall with one another. This is why Smoot-Hawley was so destructive on the economy; the politicians thought it would be a genius idea, and while it did slow imports, it also did the same to domestic production, which ultimately lead to the 20% unemployment. The stock market crash alone had little to do with that (the numbers post-crash were about what they are now until Smoot-Hawley passed, then it took a huge nose-dive.)
Trade wars are neither destructive or expensive unless either party starts adding either trade barriers like you just suggested or trade subsidies. Comparative advantage actually tends to work out as a mutual advantage. You are effectively arguing in favor of a monopoly by claiming the opposite.
This practice actually has a name, it's called transfer pricing, and the government was about to crack down on it (I believe some time back in 2007) and a bunch of companies simply threatened to move overseas if it happened. And quite honestly, in order for them to remain competitive with other foreign companies, they would HAVE to do exactly that. That is, even if they didn't move overseas, their operating costs would be so high that they'd eventually be driven out of business anyways.
If that's true, then there should have long since been limitations in the Linux kernel that you have to pay a premium for in order to get.
I bet that in such a situation, you'd reach a point where we see an interesting market where the parts to the device sell for less than it costs to make them.
I mean think about it: Instead of stolen smartphones being exported to china, they're instead parted and sold domestically, flooding the parts market.
We could possibly solve that problem by making it illegal to part out phones that are known to be stolen. Dealers that sell parts could also be required to certify that they came from legitimate sources (and be held liable for contributing to theft if they aren't.)
Actually meat won't raise your cholesterol. Or at least, it's unlikely to. In the last few years, we've found that most of what we thought we know about cholesterol to be wrong. Dietary cholesterol (that is, the cholesterol figure you see on food labels, as well as the cholesterol found in meat and eggs) doesn't actually raise your LDL (bad) cholesterol levels. What actually does is saturated fats, which are less likely to be found in meats than many vegetables.
In fact, the infamous 1986 to 2008 "Harvard Study" that is often cited by vegans as being the reason you shouldn't eat red meat, doesn't actually suggest what they claim it does. Some group interpreted the raw data to place a link between various forms of cancer and heart disease with those who eat red meat, but they made a critical mistake. The group that ate red meat also happened to include a lot of smokers, drinkers, obese people, and people who otherwise just didn't bother watching their diet, whereas among the vegetarian group you saw less of this occurring (really any form of diet at all tends to cause one to be more conscious of what they consume.)
However one critical trend that these people didn't spot was that the vegetarian group almost universally had bad cholesterol levels. Did that make the headline news? Nope. But the "red meat is bad" news did, and so lately there's been a fad to eliminate it from our diets, which I don't think is well advised.
Anyways, don't believe anybody who thinks eating meat causes bad cholesterol, because there's no evidence to support it.
Well two reasons that wouldn't apply:
I was a veteran at age 19 (Discharged from the Army for having CSNB; Honorable Discharge which includes all veterans benefits.)
I was about age 27 when I first applied for FAFSA.
Anyways, go for it.
if someone wasn't as lucky as you
Stop right there.
There's zero luck involved in it. It's just a form that you fill out. That's it. Nothing special, no roll of the dice, no need to land on the free parking. You just fill it out and you get a pell grant. Pretty much the only thing that can disqualify you is if you've been in jail a few times, and even then it's still possible to get it anyways (if it does, you've got worse issues than worrying about student debt.) Either that or you YOURSELF make too much money, in which case I must ask why the fuck do you need a loan anyways?
My grades were only responsible for the extras I received above and beyond, but everything was already paid for before those.