Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Seriously? $24k a year? (Score 1) 302

2005 is quite out of date now, so I would take those numbers with some caution. The 2010/2011 numbers are a bit different.

Since you either didn't read or misparsed the rest of my post, let me quote myself:

There are a LOT of families that can afford that without dipping into savings and without blinking an eye. The last figures I saw are that around 20% of all American families make 100k or more a year. The most expensive colleges are still really expensive, but there is a HUGE diversity of colleges in the US from junior colleges and community colleges, to small liberals arts, to big state publics, to privates research institutions, etc.

To summarize:

1) There are a lot of families that can pay out 60k a year without blinking. This is true, and the number is certainly in the millions.
2) Over 20% of Americans make more than 100k a year. As far as I can tell from the 2010/11 data, this looks true to me.
3) You'll note I never said that a family making 100k a year could easily pay 60k a year (those are two discrete statements). Most families making 100k+ can easily afford some level of college.

Though I would add, as a minor nit, that in many, many parts of the country, $2000 take home cash a month is enough to live on and be comfortable.

To some degree, the horrifying student loan figures that are frequently bandied about are like the "average credit card balance" figures. After all, 1/3 of all students who go to college end with no debt at all! Only 10% end with 40k of debt, and fewer than 1% of all students end with 100k of debt. Source.

I'm not going to argue that college isn't expensive nor that 100k debt isn't absolutely crushing. I will argue, however, about the causes and reasons, and to a lesser degree the magnitude. To repeat:

Given the tremendous wealth in the US and the availability of cheap, easy to get government money, why NOT raise tuition? With very few exceptions (see Antioch), colleges and universities hardly ever go out of business or have trouble filling seats.

Comment Re:The obvious reasons... (Score 1) 302

I absolutely agree with you assessment that the Australian educational system is more egalitarian. I think that's probably a good thing.

When I said "trade-oriented" I was indeed referring to how you generally pick your degree immediately at Australian universities and don't take classes outside of your degree. Perhaps my descriptor was a bit off there. It is, however, a very different experience than the average person in a US college/university. I was a computer science and history double major, and took a handful of linguistics classes on the side.

My sister is currently attending Adelaide and her uni experience has been much more focused.

You're absolutely right that I should have mentioned the residential nature of US colleges in comparison to Australia. I've heard school administrators claim that residences are one of the big cost drivers at universities, though I am skeptical of this claim.

Comment Re:Complete fraud (Score 1) 30

The only one lying is you, and only to yourself.

You are sooooo right. When each person has more of a say, they are less free. You make perfect sense.

To me you are simply mistaken and misguided.

You're a liar. You don't believe that at all. We are all well aware you are just trolling at this point.

History has confirmed many times over what I said.

One example, please. Thanks! (Psst. I already know you won't give one, because you don't have one.)

But go ahead. Give an example of where people were not more free as power became more local.

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

I see nothing that says "to protect the privacy of a woman we must allow murder", which is what Roe V. Wade said.

False. It does not say that. You're right, in my view, that abortion is "murder" (for some definition), but the decision and its proponents do not express that view, and do not see it that way. The decision does not say that.

I don't see pregnancy as an "unreasonable search or seizure", do you?

No, but if abortion does not unjustifiably take a human life -- as they incorrectly believe -- then such an investigation about abortion is obviously an unwarranted search / seizure.

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

He is paid to oppose tax increases on his campaign contributors

False. He is elected to do that. The payments were for the election, true, but there is no evidence of any quid pro quo. You're lying.

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

If States are not allowed to do *anything* they want within their own borders, they have neither sovereignty nor autonomy in fact.

False. They have very slightly limited sovereignty. That is the republican, federalist, system.

Comment Re:Complete fraud (Score 1) 30

One of my mantras is "local = free."

Of course it does! For the dominant power. For the rest? Well, who cares about them?

Wow. That makes no sense at all. I have no idea what you even think you're talking about, and suspect you aren't thinking at all. *EVERYONE* is more free, the more local you are, in our system, because everyone has more of a say. That's how it works. Each person becomes more dominant as the number of people is reduced.

What you defend are medieval fiefdoms and privileged status, Might makes right... It's a 'domestic matter' you say.

That bears no resemblance of any kind to anything I have ever said. Please stop lying. Thanks!

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

There is no evidence a single one of Rand Paul's campaign donations was a payment to do something.

I find your naiveté amusing.

Interesting that you didn't give a single shred of evidence of where, or even an argument that, he was paid to do something, in your attempt to show that I am naïve for saying there is no such evidence.

I wish I could YAWN big enough to express the pointlessness of your comment.

Comment Re:Deserved? (Score 5, Insightful) 95

I'd be interested in seeing his report, to see if he really did provide enough info or not on the bug.

See the previous story from a few days ago here. The bug report was complete crap, and barely distinguishable from spam. It was ALSO a legitimate bug that he was reporting AND he inappropriately spammed a third-party's wall with it.

That said Facebook WRONGLY deactivated his account when he posted on Zuck's wall AND they quickly reinstated it when they found out what was actually going on.

Assuming they fixed the bug, he ALSO deserves the bug bounty reward.

There's no good-guy, bad-guy Hollywood story here - it was a bunch of bad communication all around that resulted in a narrative that sold page views. I know, that doesn't make for an emotional after-school special.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 491

Second, his actions have not, to this date, resulted in the indiscriminate release of classified information.

So, if Greenwald, e.g., screws up and discloses the 5000 documents accidentally, then Snowden will be in the same category as Manning? That doesn't make sense - either his actions were responsible or they weren't. I won't argue that Manning was smarter than Snowden (it seems pretty clear that Snowden is much smarter) but the principle doesn't hinge on third party blunders, except as an excuse for _never_ blowing the whistle (because that's always an outside chance).

What whistleblower law applies to Manning?

The primary one would be the Geneva Convention, under which is is obligated to report war crimes and is entitled to protections for doing so.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.