Reading and comprehending posts isn't your thing is it? You just like to skim and then jump to conclusions to try and support your narrow world view.

I noted that my sister has no trouble, she has a generous grant (a scholarship if you like, but it works a little different) and her expenses are handled. However I have a full understanding of what those expenses are, and that they not paid for all students.

So maybe more reading, less jumping to conclusions.

If you like Ubiquiti you could look at their Edgerouter Lite. I'm real happy with mine. $100 and it'll outperform monowall and pfsense on way more expensive hardware. With a basic NAT setup, plus SPI firewall (the basic "permit established and related, drop others" rules) I've measured it at over 500mbps throughput. It probably would do faster, it's CPU wasn't fully loaded, that is just as fast a test server as I could easily get to.

Now of course it is more on the routing, less on the firewall n' such so if you need powerful firewall config, it isn't as much your thing (and won't get as good performance). If you load it down with too much stuff it'll slow way down, particularly since part of its speed is derived from hardware acceleration on its chip, so if tons of stuff is hitting the software it won't be as fast.

Just another option to look at.

In terms of the realtek chips, ya it sucks but it is what you get for the price. Intel NICs are expensive, because Intel knows they are worth it. They charge more for their chips than other vendors by a good bit, so you don't see them in cheap solutions.

In a lot of the EU, students from other EU countries don't have to pay tuition fees. Foreign students? Not so lucky, and language doesn't matter. If you aren't from the EU you pay increased fees. For example in Sweden you pay about 15,000 EUR/year for a science degree. In terms of language, you have to already demonstrate a proficiency in English and Swedish just to be able to get in.

Also all of this assumes you can get a visa and get admitted. People from other EU nations, no problem, you can live and work anywhere in the EU, that is a big part of what the treaty means. Non-EU individuals have to get a student visa, the requirements of which vary.

And of course none of that deals with the cost of food, housing, transport, etc. You are on your own for that, barring a scholarship.

This is a subject I have more than a passing familiarity with, as my sister is currently working on her PhD in Europe (at two universities, one in the EU one outside of it). She got a generous grant that pays all her tuition, living expenses, and even some extra but that isn't what all students get. It wasn't as though she just walked in and said "I'd like to go to school here," and they said "Certainly, please come for free!"

Also she even had an easier in than many: She and I hold Canadian citizenships. Canada is a commonwealth country and England is in the EU so that makes a lot of the visa shit way easier than it would be for an American, not that it wasn't still a big production.

It is exceedingly narrow-minded to suggest that an American should just "Emigrate to an actual civilized country instead of a pretend one," for school, as though such a thing were trivial to do and people only did not out of ignorance (not to mention the misplaced cultural supremacy of the statement). No, it turns out that you can't just graduate from an American highschool and say "Well screw the US, I'm off to Europe!" and walk in and go to school for free.

Grad school was historically and is supposed to be the sort of thing not everyone does. It is for people who are really interested in a field, who want to start doing some original research (under the umbrella of a professor's overall research) and so on. The sort of thing only for those that are truly interested in pursuing the subject more deeply and pushing the boundaries.

Also most fields don't require graduate degrees. There are some that do (like lawyers), though usually they require a PhD or other advanced degree after it (like professors, medical doctors, etc). However for most an undergraduate degree is all they are after.

However where I work, I see a ton of students that go in to grad school that are hoop jumpers. They see it as the next thing, that will get them a better job. They aren't that interested in the work, and don't have a particularly good understanding of it. They take comprehensive exams instead of doing a thesis, and so on. They try and use more time in school to make up for a lack of talent.

So, if you are thinking of grad school, and it'll be any kind of financial hardship ask yourself: Why am I going? If it is because your field requires it, then ok no problem. Gotta do what you gotta do. If it is because you really love the field and you want to go to a higher level, that's good too, but just understand it'll be a pain financially. If it is "because I'll get a better job," then no, stop right there. That's not a reason to go to grad school, particularly if it is going to be a problem financially. It probably will NOT get you a better job, and will just give you more debt.

So if I just show up in a European country, they'll let me go to university for free? Hint: No they won't.

My sister went to Europe for her PhD. She didn't end up paying... because she got a generous scholarship. That also was what allowed her to get the visa to go. She didn't just show up and walk in to a university for free.

Same way it would have worked in the US or Canada, actually. If she had been accepted to a program with a generous scholarship, well it would have been free.

I don't know if this is nuts. I'd have to see the full arguments on both sides, and so far what we have to go on is a one-sided summary.

If the *only* effect of the proposed regulation would be to increase beer prices, then sure, I agree with you 100%: government is being stupid. But if there's a good reason for the regulation, then I'd disagree with you.

Reading the article, it seems like the idea that this regulation will cause beer prices to spike dramatically seems a bit alarmist. The regulations would require brewers who send waste to farmers as animal feed to keep records. It seems hard to believe that this would significantly raise the price of beer or whiskey given that alcohol production is already highly regulated. On the other hand, it seems like there is no specific concern related to breweries. They were just caught up in a law that was meant to address animal feed.

If you want an example of a regulation free utopia, look no further than China, where adulteration of the food chain is a common problem. If the choice were a regulatory regime that slightly complicates brewers lives, and a regime that allows melamine and cyanuric acid into human food, I'd live with higher beer prices.

Fortunately, we don't have to live with either extreme. We can regulate food adulteration and write exceptions into the regulations for situations that pose little risk. Since presumably the ingredients used in brewing are regulated to be safe for human consumption, the byproducts of brewing are likely to pose no risk in the human food chain.

If you figure in the amounts given in foreign aid (military and development) as well as loans that are simply "forgiven" each year which amounts to $15-$20 billion in total each year. Directly it is $3.11 billion (and increasing) per year. In other words... $10 billion (give or take a few) of its total accumulated debt is chicken feed in the grand scheme of things.

Go to Canada some time, one of the US's closest allies. You'll find that you can travel to Cuba freely, buy Cuban goods (cigars being the most prominently advertised as being of Cuban origin) and so on.

The US is the only country that clings to an embargo and it is purely a face-saving maneuver, not wanting to admit it was a bad idea and hasn't worked to unseat Castro.

However for all that, Cuba is still poor... So sorry, you can't blame the big, bad 'ole US for this. Their policy is not helpful, but it isn't why Cuba is impoverished. That lies at the feet of their own government.

Or flip the view:
A towering bank undercut by a small church.

----------------------

In the intersection between religion and the modern world
Religion razes grandeur to the ground for 20 pieces of silver.
In the intersection between religion and the modern world
Religion refuses to budge from barren historical ground.
In the intersection between religion and the modern world
A towering bank undercut by a small church nearly kills us.

-

I once worked at a place where we produced a lot of waste contaminated lubricant. We securely set this barrels, and a nice guy would come by and pump it out and reprocess it and sell for whatever it could be used for. It cost the firm a bit in storage costs, but also save us a bit in waste disposal.

If you RTFA, and even the headline, there is no problem here for the brewers, except for the one example in which the waste was sold to a broker. In this case the waste would be worth less so they might not be able to get any money, so the extra $30 might be amortized over the ton of beer. This, by my calculation would add a penny or two per beer.

So the problem is the farmer. If there is demand,and assuming that giving away the waste to a broker is cheaper than landfilling it, which in my experience it is, then there will be a marginal additional cost to the farmer. For the small farmer, who can just go to the brewery and collect the waste, the cost will just be transportation and labor. We used to do this for the cash crops we grew, collect waste, bring it to the farm, compost it, and use it for free.

For bigger operations, they will have to pay a broker and processor. This is a consequence of mass produced food. We have to have extra precautions because when something does happen, no one is really held responsible.

Yeah, this is a $20 solution...of you've already purchased a more expensive smartphone, web cam and don't mind moving your head reeeeaaaaally slowly so the lag from the screen mirroring to your phone doesn't affect you too badly.

So the US won't trade with them. Ok, but while the US is a large nation, it isn't the be-all, end-all. Canada, the EU, China, Russia, they are all perfectly ok to trade with Cuba. So Cuba has access to most of the world for trade goods. Yet, they still have an extremely low standard of living.

Sorry, but the US boogeyman thing doesn't play, not in this day and age. Cuba has a large responsibility for the problems in Cuba.

Is it in either the Kerbal Space Program or Elite: Dangerous?

If I can't launch it or blow it up, how can I know if it really exists?

Ok, the envelope game. You can rework it to say the second envelope contains the next vulnerability in the queue of vulnerabilities. An empty queue is just as valid as a non-empty one, so if there are no further flaws then the envelope is empty. That way, all states are handled identically. What you REALLY want to do though is add a third envelope, also next item inquire, from QA. You do NOT know which envelope contains the most valuable prize but unless two bugs are found simultaneously (in which case you have bigger problems than game theory), you absolutely know two of the envelopes contain nothing remotely as valuable as the third. If no bugs are known at the time, or no more exist - essentially the same thing as you can't prove completeness and correctness at the same time, then the thousand dollars is the valuable one.

Monty Hall knows what is in two of the envelopes, but not what is in the third. Assuming simultaneous bug finds can be ignored, he can guess. Whichever envelope you choose, he will pick the least valuable envelope and show you that it is empty. Should you stick with your original choice or switch envelopes?

Clearly, this outcome will differ from the scenario in the original field manual. Unless you understand why it is different in outcome, you cannot evaluate a bounty program.

Now, onto the example of the car automotive software. Let us say that locating bugs is in constant time for the same effort. Sending the software architect on a one-way trip to Siberia is definitely step one. Proper encapsulation and modularization is utterly fundamental. Constant time means the First Law of Coding has been broken, a worse misdeed than breaking the First Law of Time and the First Law of Robotics on a first date. You simply can't produce enough similar bugs any other way.

It also means the architect broke the Second Law of Coding - ringfence vulnerable code and validate all inputs to it. By specifically isolating dangerous code in this way, a method widely used, you make misbehaviour essentially impossible. The dodgy code may be there but it can't get data outside the range for which it is safe.

Finally, it means the programmers failed to read the CERT Secure Coding guidelines, failed to test (unit and integrated!) correctly, likely didn't bother with static checkers, failed to enable compiler warning flags and basically failed to think. Thoughtlessness qualifies them for the Pitcairn Islands. One way.

With the Pitcairns now overrun by unemployed automotive software engineers, society there will collapse and Thunderdome v1.0a will be built! With a patchset to be released, fixing bugs in harnesses and weapons, in coming months.

I think perhaps he's considering the repeated devastations of Earth's ecology for poorly understood reasons, the over-use of resources being only one possible cause. Until we can deal with a little thing like 100,000 years of winter, our future is pretty limited on this planet.