Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #445747 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-02 08:51 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-02-05 08:55 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 228 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 08:51 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 08:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 11:52 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 09:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 12:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 07:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:21 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:44 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:48 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:32 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-02 20:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:44 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2017-02-07 11:22 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 12:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 17:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 00:26 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 17:33 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 19:35 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:36 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 07:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 08:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 17:08 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:12 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 17:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 19:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 21:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:43 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:51 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:55 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 15:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 03:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 03:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 12:15 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 09:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 16:24 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 13:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:41 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:03 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:16 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:43 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:47 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:52 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 15:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 04:02 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:19 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-04 17:29 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-04 08:14 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 09:01 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 04:09 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:39 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 17:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:42 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 10:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 10:35 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-03 13:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 10:18 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 09:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-04 17:21 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:09 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 10:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 11:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 23:47 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 18:39 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:14 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-07 06:13 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:04 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 01:27 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 09:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:37 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley tomseim2g@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 15:28 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 16:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-04 00:54 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 18:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 08:34 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-03 11:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:40 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 03:57 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:17 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 08:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 17:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:14 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-02 21:16 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 06:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-03 07:53 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-04 10:40 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 07:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 08:37 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 10:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 12:41 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 13:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 14:53 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-07 06:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 08:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 12:21 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 11:05 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 20:24 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-07 09:29 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 11:02 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 17:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 17:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-07 23:27 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-07 16:48 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 16:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 16:42 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 14:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 16:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:34 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 09:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:56 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 08:51 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 18:42 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:13 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 17:43 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 10:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:14 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:26 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 10:06 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:15 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-02 10:25 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:47 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 12:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:29 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:07 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:19 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:29 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-02 11:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:31 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-02 14:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-02 18:37 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 17:08 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:54 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:06 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:30 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley tomseim2g@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 22:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-05 00:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 14:55 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 16:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 22:54 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:10 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 21:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:04 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-03 06:24 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 06:56 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:51 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 21:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:15 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 19:16 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 23:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 21:07 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 19:05 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:25 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:30 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-03 05:22 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:23 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:02 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:28 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 15:18 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 08:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 15:23 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 18:14 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 19:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 21:00 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:01 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 21:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-03 13:03 +1100
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:48 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 07:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 09:25 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 10:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 18:51 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:37 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 22:38 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-03 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 11:56 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-02 21:17 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:23 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 20:19 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-02-02 23:37 -0600
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-05 08:55 -0800
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 21:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n5389c13qokhj01k1l5rh9i31e4k3k9ad7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445860 |
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:01:18 -0500, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 02/02/2017 07:10 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >>>>> >>>>> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >>>>> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >>>>> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. >>>> >>>> Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. >>>> >>>> The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole futures >>>> for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal >>>> justice) blows my mind. >>>> >>>> Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, >>>> unaccountable monstrosities. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>>> >>> >>> So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an >>> associates degree, these days? >> >> Given a giant pool of applicants, Starbucks can use the degree thing >> as a sort of IQ and attention-span and just-follow-orders >> qualification. Why not? >> >> I just met with some customers and had the misfortune to do it at a >> Starbucks. I got a latte to be sociable. There was no sugar. I asked >> an employee guy about that, and he snarled "no sugar". Sorry I annoyed >> him. >> >>> >>> Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But >>> the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of >>> some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some >>> type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a >>> psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of >>> course not. >>> >>> Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to >>> return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that >>> former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those >>> jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >>> >>> The only thing cutting federal student loans will lead to is a much >>> dumber young population, and spike the unemployment rate real good - two >>> situations which are historically known to pay big dividends for the >>> Right. I can see the attractiveness of the idea. >>> >>> >> >> The federal loan program, and the silly idea that everyone should go >> to college, has fueled the astonishing ramp-up of tuitions. And the >> dozens of brainless degree programs, like sociology and arts. Even EEs >> can get a quarter-million-dollar degree and not know much about >> electricity. > >Just because you view those programs as having no merit, doesn't mean >they actually have no merit, and ideally and certainly historically, >there is a purpose to an education beyond simply learning your letters, >figures, and how to clomp transistors together. Like say, being able to >appreciate the arts (which is liberal indoctrination, I guess.) > >What has fueled the astonishing ramp-up of tuitions is that a degree in >something or other from a 4 year is essentially a requirement for even >the most meager of "white collar" jobs. It's pay the entry fee or work >Wal-Mart or the fry line for most people - not everyone is cut out to >work a trade either, even if there was enough demand to support an >entire nation of tradespeople. > >Employeers know that employees saddled with crushing amounts of debt are >going to be pretty submissive sla...I mean workers. > >> I worked while I was in college, paid for tuition and an apartment and >> a British sports car. Not many people could manage that now. > >Awesome! But I'm not sure a time machine is a realistic proposal. As I said, it's basically impossible low. Not many kids can make $50 to 70K working part-time. > >I don't put a lot of stock in folks who went to college, got a degree, >and then turn around and tell everyone else "Nah nah it's silly you >don't need to bother with that." Some people don't have the academic mindset, or the BS skills necessary to get some professor (or, these days, a TA) to give them a passing grade. I sort of admire people like that. It takes some combination of brilliance and whoring to get a college degree. > >Suppose you were 20 today and didn't want to spend the money on college, >and didn't have any great natural aptitude for engineering or science. >How would you hack it? Remember - 10 million new plumbers or carpenters >a year is not a realistic proposal. The US doesn't have the apprenticeship programs that a lot of countries have. The next best thing is an AA degree from a community college that actually teaches something useful. There are a few. > >I'm fairly familiar with the hustles available out there for people with >no degree, given that I actually did grow up poor. My guess is that >whatever it is it would land you on the welfare line pretty quick IRL. There are worker-guy jobs that pay well. Plumbers, electricians, truck drivers, various mechanics, industrial controls, construction, maritime, hospitality, things like that. They need training, but not a 4-year degree. Farming was the classic great non-degree career. We need more accessable paths to careers like that. Now, it's a matter of luck. Universities are more and more big-bucks BS-degree mills. Flooding the country with cheap, illegal, off-the-books labor has really damaged the working class. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 23:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <abd78cfd-8dfb-462e-bc67-bb1e687cd4ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445899 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:06:16 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:01:18 -0500, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >On 02/02/2017 07:10 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex > >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >>>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex > >>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: <snip> > >> I worked while I was in college, paid for tuition and an apartment and > >> a British sports car. Not many people could manage that now. > > > >Awesome! But I'm not sure a time machine is a realistic proposal. > > As I said, it's basically impossible low. Not many kids can make $50 > to 70K working part-time. > > >I don't put a lot of stock in folks who went to college, got a degree, > >and then turn around and tell everyone else "Nah nah it's silly you > >don't need to bother with that." > > Some people don't have the academic mindset, or the BS skills > necessary to get some professor (or, these days, a TA) to give them a > passing grade. I sort of admire people like that. It takes some > combination of brilliance and whoring to get a college degree. The general impression is that it needs steady work and a certain amount of intelligence. There are - I'm told - US universities where the average IQ of the students is less than 100. My own experience as a low level university teacher (demonstrator in practical classes) was the a shortfall on steady work was what wrecked most of the people who ended up dropping out. > >Suppose you were 20 today and didn't want to spend the money on college, > >and didn't have any great natural aptitude for engineering or science. > >How would you hack it? Remember - 10 million new plumbers or carpenters > >a year is not a realistic proposal. Why not? Ever tried to find a plumber? > The US doesn't have the apprenticeship programs that a lot of > countries have. The next best thing is an AA degree from a community > college that actually teaches something useful. There are a few. John Larkin's idea of "something useful" may be a bit narrow. > >I'm fairly familiar with the hustles available out there for people with > >no degree, given that I actually did grow up poor. My guess is that > >whatever it is it would land you on the welfare line pretty quick IRL. > > There are worker-guy jobs that pay well. Plumbers, electricians, truck > drivers, various mechanics, industrial controls, construction, > maritime, hospitality, things like that. They need training, but not a > 4-year degree. > > Farming was the classic great non-degree career. It is capital intensive. Most of the successful ones I know about had got jobs as farm managers and married the daughter of the owner. It's not a large sample. > We need more accessible paths to careers like that. Now, it's a matter > of luck. Universities are more and more big-bucks BS-degree mills. > > Flooding the country with cheap, illegal, off-the-books labor has > really damaged the working class. Who were last generation's illegal off-the-books immigrant labour. Those that weren't working for the US Army in Vietnam, who did get in legally. The US grew by immigration. What's damaged the working class recently has been the capitalist class exporting the jobs to lower wage countries, and cheap-skating on the funding the education of the next generation of workers. As James Arthur points out, the US does spend a lot on education and more than it did, but a lot more per head on rich kids than poor kids, and - because of the need for more highly trained workers - not as much more as it actually needs to. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 06:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b44303d4-757a-4367-b4eb-0cfa83ce8855@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445860 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:01:23 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
> Suppose you were 20 today and didn't want to spend the money on college,
> and didn't have any great natural aptitude for engineering or science.
> How would you hack it? Remember - 10 million new plumbers or carpenters
> a year is not a realistic proposal.
>
> I'm fairly familiar with the hustles available out there for people with
> no degree, given that I actually did grow up poor. My guess is that
> whatever it is it would land you on the welfare line pretty quick IRL.
I would consider joining the armed forces. Which branch depends on what aptitudes that you possess. And if you later decided that you wanted to go to college, the military has some programs to help you.
Dan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 06:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d569ad7-cf80-4919-85eb-c8801f192e99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445932 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-5, dca...@krl.org wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:01:23 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote: > > > > Suppose you were 20 today and didn't want to spend the money on college, > > and didn't have any great natural aptitude for engineering or science. > > How would you hack it? Remember - 10 million new plumbers or carpenters > > a year is not a realistic proposal. > > > > I'm fairly familiar with the hustles available out there for people with > > no degree, given that I actually did grow up poor. My guess is that > > whatever it is it would land you on the welfare line pretty quick IRL. > > I would consider joining the armed forces. Which branch depends on what aptitudes that you possess. And if you later decided that you wanted to go to college, the military has some programs to help you. > > Dan My son (15 yo) is eyeing a STEM program in NY. If you get a STEM degree, (he wants to be an engineer (nuclear or aeronautic)) and work for four years in the state at a STEM job, then they will cover your tuition. (At a state school... now about $6.5k/yr.) George H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6ao79chfae48ri40mhi20bu7ne3ncdrcub@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445851 |
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:10:22 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex ><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >>>> >>>> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >>>> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >>>> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. >>> >>> Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. >>> >>> The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole futures >>> for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal >>> justice) blows my mind. >>> >>> Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, >>> unaccountable monstrosities. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >>> >> >>So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an >>associates degree, these days? > >Given a giant pool of applicants, Starbucks can use the degree thing >as a sort of IQ and attention-span and just-follow-orders >qualification. Why not? Do you think that a degree in rioting and pot smoking demonstrates any useful IQ or attention span? The "follow orders", I get. They march in lockstep with the MSM and Soros. >I just met with some customers and had the misfortune to do it at a >Starbucks. I got a latte to be sociable. There was no sugar. I asked >an employee guy about that, and he snarled "no sugar". Sorry I annoyed >him. > >> >>Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But >>the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of >>some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some >>type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a >>psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of >>course not. >> >>Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to >>return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that >>former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those >>jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >> >>The only thing cutting federal student loans will lead to is a much >>dumber young population, and spike the unemployment rate real good - two >>situations which are historically known to pay big dividends for the >>Right. I can see the attractiveness of the idea. >> >> > >The federal loan program, and the silly idea that everyone should go >to college, has fueled the astonishing ramp-up of tuitions. And the >dozens of brainless degree programs, like sociology and arts. Even EEs >can get a quarter-million-dollar degree and not know much about >electricity. > >I worked while I was in college, paid for tuition and an apartment and >a British sports car. Not many people could manage that now. Sounds hard!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 21:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62489cdj94vpkpji2g40of5k75422l47pg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445878 |
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:51:58 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: >On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:10:22 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex >><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >>>>> >>>>> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >>>>> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >>>>> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. >>>> >>>> Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. >>>> >>>> The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole futures >>>> for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal >>>> justice) blows my mind. >>>> >>>> Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, >>>> unaccountable monstrosities. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>>> >>> >>>So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an >>>associates degree, these days? >> >>Given a giant pool of applicants, Starbucks can use the degree thing >>as a sort of IQ and attention-span and just-follow-orders >>qualification. Why not? > >Do you think that a degree in rioting and pot smoking demonstrates any >useful IQ or attention span? The "follow orders", I get. They march >in lockstep with the MSM and Soros. > >>I just met with some customers and had the misfortune to do it at a >>Starbucks. I got a latte to be sociable. There was no sugar. I asked >>an employee guy about that, and he snarled "no sugar". Sorry I annoyed >>him. >> >>> >>>Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But >>>the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of >>>some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some >>>type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a >>>psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of >>>course not. >>> >>>Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to >>>return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that >>>former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those >>>jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >>> >>>The only thing cutting federal student loans will lead to is a much >>>dumber young population, and spike the unemployment rate real good - two >>>situations which are historically known to pay big dividends for the >>>Right. I can see the attractiveness of the idea. >>> >>> >> >>The federal loan program, and the silly idea that everyone should go >>to college, has fueled the astonishing ramp-up of tuitions. And the >>dozens of brainless degree programs, like sociology and arts. Even EEs >>can get a quarter-million-dollar degree and not know much about >>electricity. >> >>I worked while I was in college, paid for tuition and an apartment and >>a British sports car. Not many people could manage that now. > >Sounds hard! Tuition was $1200 a year, the apartment was $80 a month, the Austin Healy Sprite cost under $2K, and I was making $400 a month. It worked. Nowadays, tuition might be $60K, 50 times what it was. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 20:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjaa9cdrtq6eiu9srq5abjkl8bk8gq5mtv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445900 |
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:12:17 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:51:58 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:10:22 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex >>><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >>>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >>>>>> >>>>>> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >>>>>> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >>>>>> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. >>>>> >>>>> Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. >>>>> >>>>> The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole futures >>>>> for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal >>>>> justice) blows my mind. >>>>> >>>>> Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, >>>>> unaccountable monstrosities. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>>> >>>> >>>>So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an >>>>associates degree, these days? >>> >>>Given a giant pool of applicants, Starbucks can use the degree thing >>>as a sort of IQ and attention-span and just-follow-orders >>>qualification. Why not? >> >>Do you think that a degree in rioting and pot smoking demonstrates any >>useful IQ or attention span? The "follow orders", I get. They march >>in lockstep with the MSM and Soros. >> >>>I just met with some customers and had the misfortune to do it at a >>>Starbucks. I got a latte to be sociable. There was no sugar. I asked >>>an employee guy about that, and he snarled "no sugar". Sorry I annoyed >>>him. >>> >>>> >>>>Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But >>>>the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of >>>>some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some >>>>type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a >>>>psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of >>>>course not. >>>> >>>>Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to >>>>return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that >>>>former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those >>>>jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >>>> >>>>The only thing cutting federal student loans will lead to is a much >>>>dumber young population, and spike the unemployment rate real good - two >>>>situations which are historically known to pay big dividends for the >>>>Right. I can see the attractiveness of the idea. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>The federal loan program, and the silly idea that everyone should go >>>to college, has fueled the astonishing ramp-up of tuitions. And the >>>dozens of brainless degree programs, like sociology and arts. Even EEs >>>can get a quarter-million-dollar degree and not know much about >>>electricity. >>> >>>I worked while I was in college, paid for tuition and an apartment and >>>a British sports car. Not many people could manage that now. >> >>Sounds hard! > >Tuition was $1200 a year, the apartment was $80 a month, the Austin >Healy Sprite cost under $2K, and I was making $400 a month. It worked. I did much the same, though we did have freezer rights at the inlaws. ;-) I was being snide. Can't expect snowflakes to contribute anything. >Nowadays, tuition might be $60K, 50 times what it was. Because of the student loan programs and other absurd governmental subsidies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 19:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <rmha9c5tqo4d7norfcmvm0ffs654q1dnlv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446031 |
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:29 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: >On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:12:17 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:51:58 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:10:22 -0800, John Larkin >>><jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex >>>><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >>>>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >>>>>>> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >>>>>>> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. >>>>>> >>>>>> Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. >>>>>> >>>>>> The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole futures >>>>>> for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal >>>>>> justice) blows my mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, >>>>>> unaccountable monstrosities. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an >>>>>associates degree, these days? >>>> >>>>Given a giant pool of applicants, Starbucks can use the degree thing >>>>as a sort of IQ and attention-span and just-follow-orders >>>>qualification. Why not? >>> >>>Do you think that a degree in rioting and pot smoking demonstrates any >>>useful IQ or attention span? The "follow orders", I get. They march >>>in lockstep with the MSM and Soros. >>> >>>>I just met with some customers and had the misfortune to do it at a >>>>Starbucks. I got a latte to be sociable. There was no sugar. I asked >>>>an employee guy about that, and he snarled "no sugar". Sorry I annoyed >>>>him. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But >>>>>the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of >>>>>some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some >>>>>type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a >>>>>psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of >>>>>course not. >>>>> >>>>>Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to >>>>>return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that >>>>>former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those >>>>>jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >>>>> >>>>>The only thing cutting federal student loans will lead to is a much >>>>>dumber young population, and spike the unemployment rate real good - two >>>>>situations which are historically known to pay big dividends for the >>>>>Right. I can see the attractiveness of the idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>The federal loan program, and the silly idea that everyone should go >>>>to college, has fueled the astonishing ramp-up of tuitions. And the >>>>dozens of brainless degree programs, like sociology and arts. Even EEs >>>>can get a quarter-million-dollar degree and not know much about >>>>electricity. >>>> >>>>I worked while I was in college, paid for tuition and an apartment and >>>>a British sports car. Not many people could manage that now. >>> >>>Sounds hard! >> >>Tuition was $1200 a year, the apartment was $80 a month, the Austin >>Healy Sprite cost under $2K, and I was making $400 a month. It worked. > >I did much the same, though we did have freezer rights at the inlaws. >;-) > Well, my daddy-in-law was a cajun sugar cane farmer with some cows on the side, so we got free sugar and steaks. >I was being snide. Can't expect snowflakes to contribute anything. > >>Nowadays, tuition might be $60K, 50 times what it was. > >Because of the student loan programs and other absurd governmental >subsidies. And the idea that everyone should go to college. I don't remember universities being such voracious money-grubbers when I went to school. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 23:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <agka9cttlhit97eq54aub2fiud2kpbq0uc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446049 |
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 19:16:30 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:29 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:12:17 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:51:58 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:10:22 -0800, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex >>>>><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >>>>>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >>>>>>>> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >>>>>>>> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole futures >>>>>>> for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal >>>>>>> justice) blows my mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, >>>>>>> unaccountable monstrosities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an >>>>>>associates degree, these days? >>>>> >>>>>Given a giant pool of applicants, Starbucks can use the degree thing >>>>>as a sort of IQ and attention-span and just-follow-orders >>>>>qualification. Why not? >>>> >>>>Do you think that a degree in rioting and pot smoking demonstrates any >>>>useful IQ or attention span? The "follow orders", I get. They march >>>>in lockstep with the MSM and Soros. >>>> >>>>>I just met with some customers and had the misfortune to do it at a >>>>>Starbucks. I got a latte to be sociable. There was no sugar. I asked >>>>>an employee guy about that, and he snarled "no sugar". Sorry I annoyed >>>>>him. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But >>>>>>the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of >>>>>>some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some >>>>>>type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a >>>>>>psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of >>>>>>course not. >>>>>> >>>>>>Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to >>>>>>return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that >>>>>>former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those >>>>>>jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >>>>>> >>>>>>The only thing cutting federal student loans will lead to is a much >>>>>>dumber young population, and spike the unemployment rate real good - two >>>>>>situations which are historically known to pay big dividends for the >>>>>>Right. I can see the attractiveness of the idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The federal loan program, and the silly idea that everyone should go >>>>>to college, has fueled the astonishing ramp-up of tuitions. And the >>>>>dozens of brainless degree programs, like sociology and arts. Even EEs >>>>>can get a quarter-million-dollar degree and not know much about >>>>>electricity. >>>>> >>>>>I worked while I was in college, paid for tuition and an apartment and >>>>>a British sports car. Not many people could manage that now. >>>> >>>>Sounds hard! >>> >>>Tuition was $1200 a year, the apartment was $80 a month, the Austin >>>Healy Sprite cost under $2K, and I was making $400 a month. It worked. >> >>I did much the same, though we did have freezer rights at the inlaws. >>;-) >> > >Well, my daddy-in-law was a cajun sugar cane farmer with some cows on >the side, so we got free sugar and steaks. > > >>I was being snide. Can't expect snowflakes to contribute anything. >> >>>Nowadays, tuition might be $60K, 50 times what it was. >> >>Because of the student loan programs and other absurd governmental >>subsidies. > >And the idea that everyone should go to college. I don't remember >universities being such voracious money-grubbers when I went to >school. Oh, mine certainly was, though on a far smaller scale. The student fees went up every year (by what would be a laughably small sum now) for things that the students didn't want and couldn't afford. They finally took a vote on one of the proposals and it went down by 10 to 1 but the University decided that all no-votes (people too lazy to vote) were counted as "yes". Proposition carried.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 21:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5a03b862-c38c-4569-a194-02e0441974fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446031 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:15:49 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:12:17 -0800, John Larkin > <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > >On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:51:58 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:10:22 -0800, John Larkin > >><jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex > >>><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>>On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >>>>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex > >>>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: > I was being snide. Can't expect snowflakes to contribute anything. > > >Nowadays, tuition might be $60K, 50 times what it was. > > Because of the student loan programs and other absurd governmental > subsidies. Student loans aren't - technically - subsidies. There is an expectation that they will be repaid. They do encourage as many people as possible to try to get a tertiary education, which subsidises the economy by maximising the amount of skilled labour available. This does involve getting the universities taking in more students and harder-to-teach students, which makes the whole process more expensive. The universities aren't encouraged to winnow the stream of incoming students to exclude the students who are least likely to complete their degrees - the obvious way of doing it, by accepting only students with astronomic SAT scores, rejects too many student who can complete a degree, so what's called for is a slightly more labour-intensive selection process at the universities to select those that are merely bright enough to pass but sufficiently industrious to do the extra work that their brighter competitors don't need to put in. This is absurd, but it doesn't seem to be the absurdity that krw is complaining about. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 23:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <301067e1-194f-421c-a39d-0b2dfac27f60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445878 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:52:23 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:10:22 -0800, John Larkin > <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex > ><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex > >>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: <snip> > >Given a giant pool of applicants, Starbucks can use the degree thing > >as a sort of IQ and attention-span and just-follow-orders > >qualification. Why not? > > Do you think that a degree in rioting and pot smoking demonstrates any > useful IQ or attention span? I've yet to see a degree that certified the holder as a practitioner of rioting or pot smoking. Krw can see all sorts things that are invisible to the rest of us, and this one looks very like one of his hallucinations > The "follow orders", I get. Obviously. Krw was taught what to think quite a while ago, and hasn't deviated since. > They march in lockstep with the MSM and Soros. Neither is known for giving Busby Berkley exhibitions of precision drill either separately or together. Getting the Main Stream Media that well coordinated would be a neat trick. Persuading students to fit into such an exhibition could only happen in krw's imagination (which does seem to be a busy place). <snip> -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 19:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6a792c5-b4e9-4037-a65f-ee34015b2035@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445851 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:10:33 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:12:36 -0500, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex > >>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: <snip> > The federal loan program, and the silly idea that everyone should go > to college, has fueled the astonishing ramp-up of tuitions. The universities haven't been put under pressure to look at their student intake, and work out which student likely to complete. The tests they use now are great at identifying the really smart students who have a 95% change of emerging from the process with a degree, but the remaining 9% of their intake is less well sorted. The universities don't care - they get paid whether or not the student graduates. > And the dozens of brainless degree programs, like sociology and arts. Even EEs > can get a quarter-million-dollar degree and not know much about > electricity. What universities do - when they work right - is that they enable their students to transcend their teachers and their teaching, and learn stuff for themselves. The universities don't like admitting that - effectively they are more like obstactle courses than centres of instruction, so that if you can learn stuff when it is as badly taught as it is at a university, you can learn stuff anywhere. The "brainless" courses - which is to say courses teaching stuff that John Larkin doesn't understand or appreciate - can serve just as well as any other to develop that particular skill. > I worked while I was in college, paid for tuition and an apartment and > a British sports car. Not many people could manage that now. You did skip a lot of lectures, and you aren't all that well-informed now. You may not have made the best possible choices back then. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 17:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dd90bd5d-85d7-4ef8-9738-640669fe68a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445828 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:12:43 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote: > On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > > On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex > >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >>>> OT: Berkeley... > >>>> > >>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > >>>> > >>>> Well deserved! > >>>> > >>>> ...Jim Thompson > >>>> > >>> > >>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! > >> > >> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our > >> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, > >> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. > > > > Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. > > > > The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole futures > > for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal > > justice) blows my mind. > > > > Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, > > unaccountable monstrosities. > > > > Cheers > > > > Phil Hobbs > > > > So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an > associates degree, these days? > > Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But > the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of > some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some > type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a > psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of > course not. > > Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to > return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that > former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those > jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. bitrex, fellow liberal weenie here, tone it down. I don't see any reason we can't bring manufacturing back. George H. > > The only thing cutting federal student loans will lead to is a much > dumber young population, and spike the unemployment rate real good - two > situations which are historically known to pay big dividends for the > Right. I can see the attractiveness of the idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9_QkA.41711$uB7.30049@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #445864 |
On 02/02/2017 08:17 PM, George Herold wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:12:43 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote: >> On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >>>> >>>> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >>>> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >>>> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. >>> >>> Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. >>> >>> The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole futures >>> for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal >>> justice) blows my mind. >>> >>> Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, >>> unaccountable monstrosities. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >>> >> >> So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an >> associates degree, these days? >> >> Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But >> the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of >> some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some >> type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a >> psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of >> course not. >> >> Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to >> return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that >> former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those >> jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. > > bitrex, fellow liberal weenie here, tone it down. > I don't see any reason we can't bring manufacturing back. What do we have that people want to buy that they can't get just as good and cheaper somewhere else? Musicians I know have disparaged and derided Chinese-made gear like Behringer, for example, for a long time, but when I open one of their mixers up to check it out (not to repair as they've never needed any repairs except to replace pots worn by normal use) the quality seems to be the equal of anything Mackie is doing, and the value for the money is nuts. I do drive an American designed and made electric car from Detroit, built by American workers, and powered by nuclear energy for the most part I'd guess (I live right down the street from a plant, Pilgrim, which is still operating for the moment.) It's too bad that people are still throwing money at Toyota for the Prius when the Volt is a technically superior car in just about every way for hardly that much more money. Unfortunately, Chevrolet doesn't exactly have the reputation for quality that Toyota does. I think that reputation is undeserved now, but public opinion is public opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h3RkA.52018$_r7.15486@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #445865 |
On 02/02/2017 08:25 PM, bitrex wrote: > On 02/02/2017 08:17 PM, George Herold wrote: >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:12:43 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote: >>> On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>> On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >>>>> >>>>> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >>>>> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >>>>> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. >>>> >>>> Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. >>>> >>>> The number of people my kids know who have mortgaged their whole >>>> futures >>>> for a worthless, politicized arts degree (or BS BSes such as criminal >>>> justice) blows my mind. >>>> >>>> Universities have become massively feather-bedded, bloated, >>>> unaccountable monstrosities. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>>> >>> >>> So whaddya do, considering it seems like even Starbucks requires an >>> associates degree, these days? >>> >>> Not everyone in the world is cut out to be an engineer or physicist. But >>> the degree is not worthless, as outside the hard sciences a degree of >>> some type has become your de-facto ticket to a white-collar job of some >>> type, rather than the fast food line. Does every psychology BS become a >>> psychologist or every anthropology major become an anthropologist? Of >>> course not. >>> >>> Maybe the idea now is that in place of funding college, we're going to >>> return to manufacturing so instead of a "useless" arts degree, that >>> former student can work in a trade or manufacturing. Real talk: those >>> jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >> >> bitrex, fellow liberal weenie here, tone it down. >> I don't see any reason we can't bring manufacturing back. > > What do we have that people want to buy that they can't get just as good > and cheaper somewhere else? > > Musicians I know have disparaged and derided Chinese-made gear like > Behringer, for example, for a long time, but when I open one of their > mixers up to check it out (not to repair as they've never needed any > repairs except to replace pots worn by normal use) the quality seems to > be the equal of anything Mackie is doing, and the value for the money is > nuts. > > I do drive an American designed and made electric car from Detroit, > built by American workers, and powered by nuclear energy for the most > part I'd guess (I live right down the street from a plant, Pilgrim, > which is still operating for the moment.) > > It's too bad that people are still throwing money at Toyota for the > Prius when the Volt is a technically superior car in just about every > way for hardly that much more money. Unfortunately, Chevrolet doesn't > exactly have the reputation for quality that Toyota does. I think that > reputation is undeserved now, but public opinion is public opinion. > Trump might want to take it a bit easy on the Detroit automakers, as they seem to be one of the few industries that have products the Chinese are really interested in. Get into a tariff-trade war with China and put 20k Detroit workers out of a job? Whoops! I wouldn't be so optimistic about 2020 then...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 05:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7143b$bb8$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #445864 |
George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
> > jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy.
>
> bitrex, fellow liberal weenie here, tone it down.
> I don't see any reason we can't bring manufacturing back.
Well, there is a lot of manufacturing in USA. Problem is that
on globalized market if labour plays important part in cost,
than above Chinese pay level your product is not competitive.
So you have product where labour has minimal impact on price
and consequently such product bring small number of jobs.
Without Chinese competition labour intensive products would
be simply too expensive and production would be small.
If USA acts in smart and determined way there may more
manufacturing in USA, but it will be automatic, so
number of jobs will be limited.
In general problem is that in great days USA exported
a lot of industial goods -- that is unlikely to come
back because due to globalization everybody have similar
technology and other countries having lower living standards
also have lower wages. Another factor is that we have
a lot of industrial good and it is unlikely that demand
will be high enough pay for large number of factory
workers. Attention shifts to services, but they tend
to create low paying jobs. Of course some countries
do better in changing conditions. Of developed countries
Germany seem to do quite well. In after WWII USA
had tremendous lead compared to the rest of the world
and that translated into well-being of american
people. But USA now lost most of it lead and there
are no reason to think that past glory will come
back -- factors that helped in the past are no
longer there.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 23:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <53509c96-9b07-41ce-8253-3fef98715416@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445902 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:22:54 PM UTC+11, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. > > > > bitrex, fellow liberal weenie here, tone it down. > > I don't see any reason we can't bring manufacturing back. > > Well, there is a lot of manufacturing in USA. Problem is that > on globalized market if labour plays important part in cost, > than above Chinese pay level your product is not competitive. > So you have product where labour has minimal impact on price > and consequently such product bring small number of jobs. > > Without Chinese competition labour intensive products would > be simply too expensive and production would be small. > > If USA acts in smart and determined way there may more > manufacturing in USA, but it will be automatic, so > number of jobs will be limited. > > In general problem is that in great days USA exported > a lot of industrial goods -- that is unlikely to come > back because due to globalization everybody have similar > technology and other countries having lower living standards > also have lower wages. There's also the fact that - for example - the Germans have a better trained work force, which may explain how they can export almost as much as the US with a quarter of the population. The US has been cheap-skating on mass education for a while now, and in a lot of markets their high-tech products just aren't competitive. > Another factor is that we have > a lot of industrial good and it is unlikely that demand > will be high enough pay for large number of factory > workers. Attention shifts to services, but they tend > to create low paying jobs. Of course some countries > do better in changing conditions. Of developed countries > Germany seem to do quite well. In after WWII USA > had tremendous lead compared to the rest of the world > and that translated into well-being of American > people. But USA now lost most of it lead and there > are no reason to think that past glory will come > back -- factors that helped in the past are no > longer there. Too true. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7J2lA.61087$_r7.34576@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #445913 |
On 02/03/2017 02:23 AM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:22:54 PM UTC+11, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >> George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >>>> jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >>> >>> bitrex, fellow liberal weenie here, tone it down. >>> I don't see any reason we can't bring manufacturing back. >> >> Well, there is a lot of manufacturing in USA. Problem is that >> on globalized market if labour plays important part in cost, >> than above Chinese pay level your product is not competitive. >> So you have product where labour has minimal impact on price >> and consequently such product bring small number of jobs. >> >> Without Chinese competition labour intensive products would >> be simply too expensive and production would be small. >> >> If USA acts in smart and determined way there may more >> manufacturing in USA, but it will be automatic, so >> number of jobs will be limited. >> >> In general problem is that in great days USA exported >> a lot of industrial goods -- that is unlikely to come >> back because due to globalization everybody have similar >> technology and other countries having lower living standards >> also have lower wages. > > There's also the fact that - for example - the Germans have a better trained work force, which may explain how they can export almost as much as the US with a quarter of the population. The US has been cheap-skating on mass education for a while now, and in a lot of markets their high-tech products just aren't competitive. An educated population that's well-employed is not good for Republican voter rolls. Remember that millions of Americans are dispensationalist Christians - they _want_ things to be bad, as if things get bad enough it means Jesus is gonna be due back Any Time Now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 12:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cL2lA.61088$_r7.1494@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #445965 |
On 02/03/2017 12:02 PM, bitrex wrote: > On 02/03/2017 02:23 AM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:22:54 PM UTC+11, >> anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >>> George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >>>>> jobs are gone, man. They're never coming back. It's a fantasy. >>>> >>>> bitrex, fellow liberal weenie here, tone it down. >>>> I don't see any reason we can't bring manufacturing back. >>> >>> Well, there is a lot of manufacturing in USA. Problem is that >>> on globalized market if labour plays important part in cost, >>> than above Chinese pay level your product is not competitive. >>> So you have product where labour has minimal impact on price >>> and consequently such product bring small number of jobs. >>> >>> Without Chinese competition labour intensive products would >>> be simply too expensive and production would be small. >>> >>> If USA acts in smart and determined way there may more >>> manufacturing in USA, but it will be automatic, so >>> number of jobs will be limited. >>> >>> In general problem is that in great days USA exported >>> a lot of industrial goods -- that is unlikely to come >>> back because due to globalization everybody have similar >>> technology and other countries having lower living standards >>> also have lower wages. >> >> There's also the fact that - for example - the Germans have a better >> trained work force, which may explain how they can export almost as >> much as the US with a quarter of the population. The US has been >> cheap-skating on mass education for a while now, and in a lot of >> markets their high-tech products just aren't competitive. > > An educated population that's well-employed is not good for Republican > voter rolls. > > Remember that millions of Americans are dispensationalist Christians - > they _want_ things to be bad, as if things get bad enough it means Jesus > is gonna be due back Any Time Now. > So every time they get a Conservative president who invades the Middle East or starts blustering about nukes, they have a big orgasm moment thinking "Oh wow! It's happening! IT'S HAPPENING"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 16:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JvNkA.25922$Hz6.19005@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #445818 |
On 02/02/2017 02:55 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > On 02/02/2017 02:06 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:54:56 -0500, bitrex >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>> >>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>> >>>> Well deserved! >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>> >>> Trump is threatening someone? Oh my God, that's so unusual! >> >> I've long said that the cure for the Snowflake/SJW takeover of our >> universities is simply to stop all state and federal funding, except, >> perhaps, awarding scholarships based strictly on merit examination. > > Quitting federally-financed student loans would be good too. A federal student loan was about the one nice thing I got out of my poverty-riddled childhood in a dysfunctional family. How'd you make out? Nothing more galling than seeing guys who probably make more in a year than I've probably made in the past ten complain so bitterly about "SJWs" and "Snowflakes." An education was my ticket out of eating sardines for dinner for the rest of my life. Oh, oh. But a Twitter SJW at a university offended you. I'm so sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web