Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:How to lower the cost of education (Score 1) 308

1. Good colleges and universities are unlikely to want to give people what they see as a substandard education, and it isn't clear to me that it would save much money in STEM fields. My son's classes were mostly STEM.

2. Employers are likely to have their own criteria. Unfortunately, when the company gets big enough that it attracts too many applications to handle, it's real easy to take large categories of less promising applications and throw them out. If the employer thinks a college degree is likely to have some slight help, round-filing the applications without degrees is awful tempting. Remember, employers have no obligation to be fair to applicants (except in certain specific ways - no discrimination on grounds of race, religion, etc.), their obligations are to their own efficient operations.

3. I so want someone to come along and find out how colleges and universities are spending their money and why. Inflation-adjusted, my son's college degree was about four times as expensive as mine, and it didn't take four times the resources. I really want to know where the money is going. I know there's reduced state aid, but that comes nowhere near explaining it. I strongly suspect my local university is spending a lot of money that students and faculty get no benefit from.

Comment Re: Saving the world with a Tax. (Score 1) 278

It's possible to impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax, by reducing other taxes. (I'd recommend reducing the taxes that affect the poor, since they'll be hardest hit by a carbon tax.) A revenue-neutral carbon tax would leave just as much money available for investment, and would make investment in renewable energy more profitable.

Comment Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score 1) 556

believe that the US government cares sufficiently - or indeeed at all - about what's said on Slashdot

In the comments of the articles about the Russian anschluss of the Crimea and the shooting down of the airliner by a Russian missile, there sure seemed to be Russian shills active. It surprised me. So, stranger things have happened.

Comment Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score 1) 556

Speaking as one who tries to be rational....

This is how I think things went. Assange moved to Sweden, not fearing extraordinary rendition to the US. He got sexually involved with a couple of women. I don't know exactly what he did, although I've read statements. The women's statements do show that rape charges may well be in order. There follows some things that I've only heard from sources I don't entirely trust, and who in some cases are clearly as ignorant as I am of Swedish law. Assange goes to the UK, which is a really dumb thing to do if you're afraid of being extradited to the US. Sweden files an extradition request, and Assange appeals against it. The UK court system systematically goes through it, and decides that the alleged acts do constitute a serious crime under UK law, and that the evidence supporting the allegation is reasonable. The UK agreed to send Assange back to Sweden to stand trial.

At this point, Assange fled, since he didn't want to face trial in Sweden. He took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, and claimed that he was afraid of being sent to the US.in order to avoid saying that he didn't want to go to Sweden for his trial, despite having no evidence that the US wanted him.

This explains the facts I've seen on the case nicely. It doesn't rely on speculation on what governments might be doing. It explains why Assange might go to Sweden in the first place, despite later claims that he fears Sweden will cooperate in turning him over to the US. It's an easy, simple answer that paints Assange as the closest thing to a bad guy the story has.

I'm not a government operative, although until more than twenty-five years ago I worked for a county government. If you want me to pay attention to you, address my reasoning. Don't pull an ad hominem. ("You're stupid so your argument's wrong" is an ad hominem. "Your argument is stupid so you must be too" is not. Just to clarify.)

Comment Re:Does the US government want him? (Score 1) 556

As far as I can tell, he wants to avoid being handed over to Sweden because he doesn't want to face the Swedish courts calling him to account on what he did. If he feared US extradition, he would never have gone to the UK. If he feared extraordinary rendition from Sweden, he would never have gone there in the first place.

Comment Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score 1) 556

I'm positive that, had Assange done nothing, Manning's sentence would have been commuted. Obama doesn't take orders from Assange's grandstanding, and his offer to accept extradition to the US is null unless and until the US files an extradition request.

Comment Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score 1) 556

I see no good reason to think the US wants him for anything. If we were going to do anything, we would have back when he was halfway relevant. Ideally, he'd go to Sweden and face a Swedish court. It looks to me like he's blaming everyone he can, including the US, because he fears justice.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin