Post a picture, argue with me!

Yeah, I don't see the argument part, it's totally true. We should thank Jesús along with the deity of your choice.

sometimesdee wrote:

Yeah, I don't see the argument part, it's totally true. We should thank Jesús along with the deity of your choice.

Those onions look amazing.

IMAGE(http://icdn1.digitaltrends.com/image/screen-shot-2013-05-13-at-1-10-14-pm-650x0.png)

Digital map of Twitter hate speech.

It took me a few minutes to suss out what ableist speech was.

Really, no hate in SoCal? Or maybe more Californians know how to lock their tweets?

I too find it hard to believe there was not measurable homophobia coming from Orange County.

Sorry, because "journalists" suck at sourcing.

http://users.humboldt.edu/mstephens/...

Per the article, the OC had the highest absolute number of hate tweets, but the overall volume of tweets was so high that it seemed lower due to the percentages.

Tanglebones wrote:

the OC

Don't call it that.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

the OC

Don't call it that.

Does that count as hate speech too?

I think there's a really hateful person just north of Effingham, IL. I spend a lot of time in rural central and southern Illinois for work, and was curious how racist and homophobic it was. The map says, not really that bad. I think the real answer is that there aren't enough people aware of the existence of twitter to have their hatred show up.

Wheeeeee!

I'm guessing in ten years they start listing college tuition fees in Kidney Units, or KU. "Yeah, you got yer community college, that there's just one KU per year. But them fancy Ivy Leaguers, they're like 12 KUs. Hope you got a big family to pay fer all that learnin'."

IMAGE(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/518e59b2ecad04645f000006-1600-1225/college-10.jpg)

Minarchist wrote:

Wheeeeee!

I'm guessing in ten years they start listing college tuition fees in Kidney Units, or KU. "Yeah, you got yer community college, that there's just one KU per year. But them fancy Ivy Leaguers, they're like 12 KUs. Hope you got a big family to pay fer all that learnin'."

While the sticker price of tuition has gone up considerably, net tuition--what people actually pay--has grown much, much slower.

IMAGE(http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/05/pm-students/pm-gr-studenttuition-462-02.jpg)

Sauce

NPR's Planet Money did a story on this last year. The basic premise behind the growth of tuition is that people judge the quality of the education by how expensive it is. So colleges and universities make up massive sticker prices and then bring down that amount with various scholarships, grants, and student aid. Only the dumb children of the very rich pay that sticker price.

Yeah, those grants and student aid still come from somewhere. With the exception of school-granted scholarships, it's all still money being pulled out of the system to pay it. Look at the student loans, for example:

IMAGE(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/crazy%20student%20loans%202011-q2.png)

This is money that never leaves your side. Even bankruptcy doesn't clear away the government's ability to garnish your wages for student loans.

The grants and student aid don't necessarily have to come from somewhere real. Universities can--and do--make up things just to bring the price tag down to something affordable.

When it comes to student debt, I have to question how much comes from actual institutes of higher education vs. the ever-growing number of for-profit diploma mills?

[EDIT] I also have to wonder how much of the growth in the culmulative student debt is from people trying to duck the recession by getting another degree or simply staying in school.

OG_slinger, purely based on my experience and not any data, the vast majority of that is coming from actual universities. I wouldn't be surprised if a disproportionate amount is coming from Liberal Arts colleges and other 'high prestige' colleges that have very high tuition and cater to very idealistic youth, but I don't think for profit colleges are a terribly large chunk.

According to a 2011 article,

USA Today wrote:

"The for-profit higher education sector posted a number of highs — and lows— in other findings, including the highest average price of attendance after grants are factored in, highest average loan amounts and the lowest spending per student on instruction..."

in other words, OG has a point. While for-profit colleges account for 9% of students, those students owe a heck of a lot.

I know a couple of the people making up those statistics. I think the worst are the for profit tech schools, honestly. The DOE really needs to take a good look at many of those who are defrauding students with promises and ads regarding job placements, etc.

ITT has had a good many class action suits. I did my best to dissuade a few people from their "Forensic Science" program. Every PD I ever encountered with the budget for forensics wanted people with masters degrees in chemistry, physics, anthropology, and biology.

Unsurprisingly, the number of students enrolled at for-profit institutions has been skyrocketing for the past 15 years. They accounted for just 3% of undergraduate enrollment in 2000, 9% in 2009 and 13% in 2012.

[i wrote:

NYT[/i]]Students at for-profit colleges make up 13 percent of the nation’s college enrollment, but account for about 47 percent of the defaults on loans. About 96 percent of students at for-profit schools take out loans, compared with about 13 percent at community colleges and 48 percent at four-year public universities.

Those students take on a lot more debt than students attending to more traditional colleges and universities.

IMAGE(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/debt-by-institution-type.jpg)

Source

That was also what was found in the Harkin Report.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/TdNwJJ1.png)

KingGorilla wrote:

I am more shocked that Geno Auriemma is making more money than Jim Calhoun in Connecticut.

Jim Calhoun retired a year ago, but he did make more than Geno. His protege and replacement, Kevin Ollie, is making a pretty penny but not as much as Geno, who has been around for 25 years.

A great talk from Larry Lessig on the root of america's political issues:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_le...

bnpederson wrote:

I don't believe the USPS itself has a bias, but I can easily believe individual USPS employees have enough biases and lack of ethics to ignore or otherwise not promptly process a package that says "Atheist" on it. And if you've enough of those employees it means they're, for all practical purposes, bias.

I'm sure a large part of it is USPS employee vigilantism against atheism, but I would be willing to bet that it's also partly that branded packaging means expensive stuff inside, which means it's worth stealing.

Found via Old Game Magazines

IMAGE(http://24.media.tumblr.com/a3cb4a84b6b566ee157120390e3cb6d9/tumblr_mlg8yaHaMj1rkrwaco1_1280.jpg)

Why on earth would anyone think this ad was a good Idea? Granted, this could be said about all of the 1990s, but this especially.

So an argument over this has been brewing in "post a picture, entertain me!"

IMAGE(http://abcnews.go.com/images/Technology/ht_gif_webby_steve_wilhite_tk_130522_wblog.jpg)
So says the inventor of the .gif

I've always been in the "jif" camp. Also: People still use that format for anything except animations? ;>

Doubt it, Hypatian. I also agree. "Jif" rolls better off the tongue.

I always think of the phrase 'beware of geeks bearing gifs', which I read in an early nineties issue of PC World magazine (the British one). Of course, that was a pun on 'beware of Greeks bearing gifts', which doesn't work as neatly if you pronounce it "jif".

It's too late to change how it's pronounced, there's too much inertia behind "gif."

IHateDRM wrote:

Ad

Nice en pointe Liefield walk. That's how you get those killer legs.

If it was supposed to be "Juh," he should have used a J.

ruhk wrote:

It's too late to change how it's pronounced, there's too much inertia behind "gif."

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone even remotely tech saavy actually say "gif" (not to say those people don't exist, but I've never run into it). It's an animated jif.

kaostheory wrote:

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone even remotely tech saavy actually say "gif" (not to say those people don't exist, but I've never run into it). It's an animated jif.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/5_zps4894ea02.gif)

It's not even a word...

kaostheory wrote:
ruhk wrote:

It's too late to change how it's pronounced, there's too much inertia behind "gif."

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone even remotely tech saavy actually say "gif" (not to say those people don't exist, but I've never run into it). It's an animated jif.

I EXIST DAMMIT!!

Now, I have to get back to work, as I upload my latest repository to jithub. Oh wait...

Honestly, I had never heard anyone else say "jif" in reference to the file format. But I always assumed the hard G because it was only one letter short of "gift". Which isn't pronounced "jift".