Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Well I do hope.... (Score 1) 1032

...he's ashamed of himself, but he doesn't sound like he is unfortunately. He sounds instead like he's mad he didn't get his education for free (or at least at the "right price") and now he doesn't want to pay the bill.

I do sympathize, I really do...my parents didn't make much so I worked and scraped my way through college. Yes I did take out a couple of (small) student loans--and worked every weekend at McDonald's to supplement. Did I like it? Nope. Did I do it so I wouldn't end up with "crippling debt" (he didn't say how much he owed)? Yep.

Believe me, the day I mailed that last check was one of the best days of my life prior to meeting my lovely wyfe.

Very often, signing for a student loan is one of the first adult decisions a person makes. He reneged on his promise and all of us paid a little bit for it. That's wrong. I hope the Department of Education catches up with him eventually and starts garnishing his paycheck until the books are balanced.

Should college education be free? No--that's not how we do things here. Should we changes the system so it is? I don't think so myself; better that more people take other routes for higher education (trades, etc.). That's a reasonable debate to have as a society. There's no question that we could give everybody a free college education here in America; we're the most fantastically wealthy society ever to exist. But should we? I think not but am willing to have the conversation.

But whatever happens, deadbeats like the author should be pursued until they've repaid every penny of what they borrowed.

Ferret

Comment Re:Sudden? (Score 1) 268

Odd that your tagline references the Constitution, yet you don't seem to understand it very well.

Money must equal free speech, or there is no free speech at all.

Let's examine a hypothetical. We've got two guys, Stu and Hank, who both want to run for mayor. Both of them announce their intention and do a few rubber-chicken dinners in pursuit of this goal.

Hank decides that's not reaching enough people, so he takes out an ad in the paper and distributes flyers throughout the city. Stu sees that this is reaching people and counters with radio ads. Hank responds with TV ads.

And so on. At what point does who, and under what authority, decide that Stu and Hank can't spend any more money on the campaign? How do you propose to limit the speech of newspaper writers, TV anchors, the guy on the street who talks up one candidate over another?

Just because I can buy a printing press and you can't doesn't mean I can't use it in support of a candidate I support. To believe otherwise would logically either a.) force me to not use my printing press or b.) buy you one as well (where does that money come from?).

Money enables free speech. You can shout in the woods all you want but it won't be very effective. You can print a million flyers and be more effective. One requires money.

Ferret

Comment Re:Republican Hypocrits (Score 4, Insightful) 98

That isn't quite right, and you're conviniently forgetting the many Democrat hypocrites so you can bash Republicans.

Most of the Republicans who voted for this were swayed by the "free trade" aspects, viewing that as the most important thing. Generally speaking Republicans prefer open and free trade whereas Democrats prefer protectionism. Here Obama waves the free trade flag and they're duped into supporting him.

I wish they'd step back and listen to their constituents a bit more here. The mere secrecy surrounding this thing should be enough to garner 100% rejection.

Ferret

Comment Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293

They'll ignore it and make up "revised models", just like they ignored their previous predictions of an ice-free Arctic (the earliest I found was for the year 2000).

You can't argue with a Doomsday Cultist, and that's in effect what AGW has become....just another Doomsday Cult. No amount of fact, no failure of the world to melt will convince them.

Which really is too bad because I support much of what they want to do....move away from fossil based fuels as much as possible, diversify out our energy sources with solar and wind and tidal energy and nuclear, do some farming and livestock raising smarter/better, plant more trees. But they wrap it up in this redistributionist "end capitalism now" nonsense that just renders the rest of their message unhearable.

Ferret

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...