Quote from: fork in the ass on May 07, 2007, 02:39:36 AMIn Europe, the state pays for the institutional costs of instruction; students pay little or no tuition, but are responsible for living costs; and most universities are public. In the US, by contrast, student loans have become the most profitable, uncompetitive, oppressive, and predatory type of debt of any in the nation. This has occurred due to legislation that was largely paid for by the the lobbying machine of Sallie Mae, the largest student loan company in America. Vast personal fortunes are being made by both Sallie Mae executives, and others who paid for this legislation, at the expense of decent citizens who were not able to capitalize on their education. This has effectively crippled MILLIONS of decent citizens who want to repay their original debt, but are prevented from doing so by staggeringly higher amounts being demanded from them by both "non-profit", and for-profit student loan companies.
Quote from: threestrikes on May 12, 2007, 08:21:16 AMQuote from: fork in the ass on May 07, 2007, 02:39:36 AMIn Europe, the state pays for the institutional costs of instruction; students pay little or no tuition, but are responsible for living costs; and most universities are public. In the US, by contrast, student loans have become the most profitable, uncompetitive, oppressive, and predatory type of debt of any in the nation. This has occurred due to legislation that was largely paid for by the the lobbying machine of Sallie Mae, the largest student loan company in America. Vast personal fortunes are being made by both Sallie Mae executives, and others who paid for this legislation, at the expense of decent citizens who were not able to capitalize on their education. This has effectively crippled MILLIONS of decent citizens who want to repay their original debt, but are prevented from doing so by staggeringly higher amounts being demanded from them by both "non-profit", and for-profit student loan companies.I was in Germany for three years from 1982 till 1985. Talking with several locals during my stay, it was my understanding the government would pay, but NOT everyone got to go to the university. By 8th grade, the kids were placed on a track as either blue-collar or white-collar based on the needs of the State. If you wanted to deviate off the track, you were responsible for your own costs. Therefore, if you want to rely on the State to pay your costs with no repayment, than the State will assume the role of deciding who goes and who does not - money is finite. Freedom of choice comes with responsibility to pay, or pay back if you borrow. I’ll stay with the latter, thank you.
So more "choice" does not mean more "quality."
Quote from: beyond aurora on February 05, 2009, 09:06:47 PMI wouldn't blame them for posting this crap, santropez -- I mean, you can find weird stuff even on CNN -- take a look at this one LOL New Yorkers stuck with syrupy smell, but can breathe easyNEW YORK (CNN) -- The source of a mysterious maple syrup-like smell that has periodically blanketed New York is not a particularly aromatic pancake house but a New Jersey factory involved in the processing of fenugreek seeds, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Thursday. The sweet aroma first descended upon Manhattan and northern New Jersey in October 2005, initially triggering several building evacuations as well as concern the scent was physically harmful. Authorities from the Office of Emergency Management soon concluded it posed no danger to the public. The odor made several return appearances in subsequent years, each time confounding nostrils before vanishing as perplexingly as it arrived.Comparing information about local wind speed, wind direction and air humidity against the locations of citizen complaints about the smell, officials from the city's Department of Environmental Protection narrowed down the potential source to four factories in northern New Jersey that produce food additives and fragrances. Last week, when several dozen residents of Upper Manhattan called to complain about the smell, the environmental department, having developed a new evidence gathering procedure, gathered air samples from each suspected source in canisters. Tests revealed the pungent perpetrator of that incident was a Hudson County facility owned by Frutorom, a company that develops and manufactures flavors for the food, fragrance and pharmaceutical industries.The specific chemical agents responsible for the scent are esters, compounds "created by the reaction between an alcohol and an acid" during the processing of fenugreek seeds, according to Bloomberg. Toasted fenugreek seeds are often used in the production of artificial syrups and in the cuisines of a number of cultures. The mayor said New Jersey officials, who cooperated with New York in the investigation, had concluded that Frutorom had not violated any rules. He said New Yorkers will have to tolerate the syrup smell's occasional return, noting that it's a relatively benign odor. "All things considered I can think of a lot of things worse than maple syrup," he said. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/05/NY.syrup.smell/index.htmlIt may seem "crap" and "weird stuff" to you, beyond aurora, but if you'd visit NYC even for a single day you'd easily notice this is indeed a serious issue to be dealt with!
I wouldn't blame them for posting this crap, santropez -- I mean, you can find weird stuff even on CNN -- take a look at this one LOL New Yorkers stuck with syrupy smell, but can breathe easyNEW YORK (CNN) -- The source of a mysterious maple syrup-like smell that has periodically blanketed New York is not a particularly aromatic pancake house but a New Jersey factory involved in the processing of fenugreek seeds, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Thursday. The sweet aroma first descended upon Manhattan and northern New Jersey in October 2005, initially triggering several building evacuations as well as concern the scent was physically harmful. Authorities from the Office of Emergency Management soon concluded it posed no danger to the public. The odor made several return appearances in subsequent years, each time confounding nostrils before vanishing as perplexingly as it arrived.Comparing information about local wind speed, wind direction and air humidity against the locations of citizen complaints about the smell, officials from the city's Department of Environmental Protection narrowed down the potential source to four factories in northern New Jersey that produce food additives and fragrances. Last week, when several dozen residents of Upper Manhattan called to complain about the smell, the environmental department, having developed a new evidence gathering procedure, gathered air samples from each suspected source in canisters. Tests revealed the pungent perpetrator of that incident was a Hudson County facility owned by Frutorom, a company that develops and manufactures flavors for the food, fragrance and pharmaceutical industries.The specific chemical agents responsible for the scent are esters, compounds "created by the reaction between an alcohol and an acid" during the processing of fenugreek seeds, according to Bloomberg. Toasted fenugreek seeds are often used in the production of artificial syrups and in the cuisines of a number of cultures. The mayor said New Jersey officials, who cooperated with New York in the investigation, had concluded that Frutorom had not violated any rules. He said New Yorkers will have to tolerate the syrup smell's occasional return, noting that it's a relatively benign odor. "All things considered I can think of a lot of things worse than maple syrup," he said. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/05/NY.syrup.smell/index.html
Quote from: klepsi on September 09, 2008, 06:07:39 PMQuote from: mi on June 18, 2006, 09:04:01 PMDon't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.htmlAs I understand it, you don't have to actually go with a guy to have a baby. I think I am goin' for it! Mother here ... I was like, do I post post this, or is it better not to post it at all ... but then, I thought, I'm gonna post it anyway ... I am aware that talking about two men having a baby sounds crazy and that several posters on this board may ridicule the idea ... now, I don't know if I'm being naive, but science has made possible for us things that 50 years ago we'd think were impossible ... my question is - is this something that scientists are working on and that they are bound to bring to fruition? I have a son who's gay, who very much loves his partner - I know deep down myself he loves children, it's just that he does not go with women. I sometimes 'rave' he might have a biological child with his partner, his boyfriend ... now I wonder, is this just a poor woman's imagination, or something that will come true sooner or later?
Quote from: mi on June 18, 2006, 09:04:01 PMDon't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.htmlAs I understand it, you don't have to actually go with a guy to have a baby. I think I am goin' for it!
Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.html
Quote from: Birkena on December 05, 2008, 10:27:12 PM[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies. [...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies. [...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
Quote from: M e r i a on December 08, 2011, 05:17:44 AMQuote from: klepsi on September 09, 2008, 06:07:39 PMQuote from: mi on June 18, 2006, 09:04:01 PMDon't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.htmlAs I understand it, you don't have to actually go with a guy to have a baby. I think I am goin' for it! Mother here ... I was like, do I post post this, or is it better not to post it at all ... but then, I thought, I'm gonna post it anyway ... I am aware that talking about two men having a baby sounds crazy and that several posters on this board may ridicule the idea ... now, I don't know if I'm being naive, but science has made possible for us things that 50 years ago we'd think were impossible ... my question is - is this something that scientists are working on and that they are bound to bring to fruition? I have a son who's gay, who very much loves his partner - I know deep down myself he loves children, it's just that he does not go with women. I sometimes 'rave' he might have a biological child with his partner, his boyfriend ... now I wonder, is this just a poor woman's imagination, or something that will come true sooner or later?Meria, in all due respect, I'm trying to think what is it that you're really thinking?! You say, "it's 'just' that he does not go with women" - I mean, what's that supposed to mean - for this kind of thing, going with women really matters! Just take a look at the date the electronic article was posted on BBC - more than 10 years ago - doesn't that make you think they're not making their "best efforts" on that?!
Quote from: 5 min only on February 18, 2011, 11:28:27 PMSo, My Bonnie, the magic formula isDiscrimination=Curve-AdaptiveIs it not so?Hahaha Veronica - the complete formula would, naturally, be Discrimination=Curve-Adaptive+FactorF*
So, My Bonnie, the magic formula isDiscrimination=Curve-AdaptiveIs it not so?
Quote from: V e r o n i c a on February 18, 2011, 11:35:50 PMQuote from: 5 min only on February 18, 2011, 11:28:27 PMSo, My Bonnie, the magic formula isDiscrimination=Curve-AdaptiveIs it not so?Hahaha Veronica - the complete formula would, naturally, be Discrimination=Curve-Adaptive+FactorF*Veronica, are you guys talking in code here? "Curve," "Adaptive," "FactorF*" - what the h e l l does that all mean?'
Discussion
Resources
