Strange form of black hole at the heart of Milky Way

[Gary]

Scientists discover strange form of black hole at the heart of Milky Way

A strange form of black hole has been detected for the first time at the heart of the
Milky Way.

It's a "mini-me" version of its neighbouring supermassive "cousin" - shedding light on how
it formed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/scientists-discover-strange-form-ofblackhole-heart-milky-way/

[GLOBALIST]

My question is how do the alarmists view this?
My first guess is impending doom as usual

[Tzatz Ziki]

On 9/4/2017 3:44 PM, GLOBALDUMBFUCK wrote:

> My question is [...]

Nobody gives a damn, DUMBFUCK.

> My first guess is

I don't need to guess to know you're a DUMBFUCK.

Now shut the fuck up, DUMBFUCK.

DISMISSED!

[Gary]

Maybe a new planet will be born. And when this Earth becomes uninhabitable -- the folks
here can move there. Somewhat like some Ancient Aliens did when they came here.

[El Castor]

Black holes don't make planets, they swallow them. If the Earth was,
or was in, a black hole it would have a diameter of less than an inch.

[Gary]

OK, thanks. My mistake :-)

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 12:11:42 -0700, El Castor
<DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:

A black hole itself is dimensionless. When people speak of the
"size" of a black hole, they mean the Schwarzchild radius or the
event horizon (which are related to each other just as the radius
of earth is related to its circumference. That's the region from
which nothing can escape from a relativistic standpoint, although
it is possible for material to "evaporate" from a black hole because
of quantum mechanics: two complementary particles created
simultaneously, one barely inside the event horizon and one barely
outside it. The one outside could get away, which case the mass
of the hole would be diminished by that minuscule amount.

In practice all black holes rotate at least a little, so the event
horizon is an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, and the
Schwarzchild radius is the distance from the hole to the
event horizon if the horizon didn't rotate.

Likewise the diameter of earth is shorter pole-to-pole
than across the equator, because the angular momentum
of the rotating earth cancels out some of the gravitational
force of the matter.

[El Castor]

OK, granted, but the less than an inch thing is a very rough
approximation of the size of the resulting "object" if the space in
and between the atoms that make up the Earth was removed, leaving
nothing but densely compacted sub atomic particles. I looked it up.
(-8

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 13:26:11 -0700, El Castor

That's the size that the event horizon would be if the
earth collapsed into a black hole. The earth itself would
be a dimensionless point at the center. There would
be no "particles", sub-atomic or other.

If the earth could somehow collapse into a body
of subatomic particles with no space between
them, that body would itself collapse into a black
hole at very close to the speed of light, due to
the gravitational force of so much matter in such
close proximity. I'm not sure if a theoretical body
consisting of elementary particles with all the
space "squeezed out" (insofar as we even know
what "elementary particles" "are". would be the
same size as the event horizon of the black hole
into which they would collapse immediately. It
might be true, I guess, but I doubt it.

"Speed of light" is perhaps a misnomer, ISTM.
That speed is actually the fastest speed at which
anything can happen. Light just happens to travel
very close to that speed, perhaps exactly at that
speed if there were no interfering matter or
gravitational fields, but there always is some,
hence the apparent kink in a straw partly in
and partly out of a glass of water ("refraction").
That refraction effect occurs in astronomy too,
where there can be multiple images of a galaxy
because of a gas cloud between it and us.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 13:26:11 -0700, El Castor

[El Castor]

Oh well, maybe so -- beyond me. And what came before the Big Bang?
About the time we get it all figured out, Florence, or her cousin
Eloise, will probably show up and knock us out of the ball park. (-8

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 20:07:44 -0700, El Castor

There has to be something that nothing came "before". Some
say it was a god but there's no evidence that existed at all and
in fact it's quite silly because not only is there no evidence of it,
it wouldn't explain anything even if it did exist. The widespread
belief in gods is just a "defect" in the human mind, which most
likely IMV arose due to the likely "fact" that for a people to
defeat others in war and therefore survive, it helps to have a
powerful leader, real or not. That doesn't speak "for" those
hypothetical gods actually existing: it speaks very strongly
"against" it.

Some say the Big Bang, which we know for sure happened.

Some say there were other phenomena "before" the Big
Bang and maybe there were, but we don't know anything
about them. I put "before" in quotes because I regard space
and time as features of THIS universe, like matter and
energy. If we assert there's space and time that's not
part of this universe but in which this universe sits, there's
no evidence of that, and if you think about it you realize
it's an assertion that has no support at all. Just another
one of those things like "god".

But existence itself? As I've said since I was at least 20,
probably long before that, if it were possible for me to say
anything without first existing, I would say with complete
certainty that existence was impossible. Yet here we are.
How, I don't know, and I'm convinced that we can never
know, because by its very nature existence itself is not
accessible to reason. I saw even Dawkins saying that
physicists are working on how something can come out
of nothing, but if I may be so bold, I'd say that's
poppycock and no matter what's discovered, we're
going to end up at the same impasse as before.

Steven Weinberg wrote, approximately, that
whatever the "fundamental facts" of existence may
turn out to be, there's no reason to assume that
they will be pleasing to physicists.

[El Castor]

Infinity in time and space means that our universe hasn't been around
as long as the blink of a fly's eye and is smaller than one grain of
sand in all the beaches of the world. I don't consider myself to be
religious, but in an infinite universe, it is not unreasonable to
believe anything is possible. In case you haven't seen it, Netflix has
season one of a TV series with a different take on the afterlife, The
Good Place. Trust me, do yourself a favor and watch it.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:21:16 -0700, El Castor
<snip>

>Infinity in time and space means that our universe hasn't been around
>as long as the blink of a fly's eye and is smaller than one grain of
>sand in all the beaches of the world. I don't consider myself to be
>religious, but in an infinite universe, it is not unreasonable to
>believe anything is possible. In case you haven't seen it, Netflix has
>season one of a TV series with a different take on the afterlife, The
>Good Place. Trust me, do yourself a favor and watch it.

I think I'll take a pass on that. The name definitely sounds
like the usual feelgood stinkpot stuff that gave us kkkristianity
and Islam and other such blessings. I've hardly ever had
indigestion, but that kind of stuff might do it.

Infinity is just a mathematical device. Our universe, which
is all we know of time and space, is not infinite and "never"
will be.

[billbowden]

"rumpelstiltskin" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:afmvqcpffavjgv1vh...@4ax.com...

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

ESA: What would be the size of the Universe if it was finite?

Joseph Silk:
It could be as large as 100 times the horizon. That means that the Universe
would be as much as a 100 thousand million parsecs, about 300 thousand
million light years, if we could measure the topology.

[El Castor]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 04:24:38 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:21:16 -0700, El Castor
><snip>
>
>
>>Infinity in time and space means that our universe hasn't been around
>>as long as the blink of a fly's eye and is smaller than one grain of
>>sand in all the beaches of the world. I don't consider myself to be
>>religious, but in an infinite universe, it is not unreasonable to
>>believe anything is possible. In case you haven't seen it, Netflix has
>>season one of a TV series with a different take on the afterlife, The
>>Good Place. Trust me, do yourself a favor and watch it.
>
>
> I think I'll take a pass on that. The name definitely sounds
>like the usual feelgood stinkpot stuff that gave us kkkristianity
>and Islam and other such blessings. I've hardly ever had
>indigestion, but that kind of stuff might do it.

"The Good Place is an American fantasy comedy television series
created by Mike Schur. The series premiered on September 19, 2016 on
NBC. The series focuses on Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell), a
recently deceased young woman who wakes up in the afterlife and is
sent by Michael (Ted Danson) to "The Good Place", a heaven-like utopia
he designed, in reward for her righteous life. However, she quickly
realizes that she was sent there by mistake, and must hide her morally
imperfect behavior (past and present). William Jackson Harper, Jameela
Jamil, and Manny Jacinto co-star as other residents of the Good Place,
together with D'Arcy Carden as an artificial being helping the
inhabitants. The Good Place has received critical acclaim since its
premiere, with many praising its performances, writing, originality,
setting, and tone, as well as its season finale's twist ending. On
January 30, 2017, NBC renewed the series for a second season of 13
episodes, which is set to premiere on September 20, 2017, with an
hour-long premiere, before moving to its normal time slot Thursday at
8:30 pm, beginning September 28, 2017.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Place

> Infinity is just a mathematical device. Our universe, which
>is all we know of time and space, is not infinite and "never"
>will be.
>

"Our" universe (it isn't ours) is for all practical purposes, one star
and its planets. Of course THE universe is infinite in time and
dimension.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Sounds dreadful to me, but I can be very hard to please.
I've never heard of it before so maybe I can't get it on
my antenna TV. I have to play with my antenna wiring
geometry and twaddle around with those god-awful
shielded-cable connectors just to get Channel 4 back after
I move the antenna or the cat knocks it over. I am NOT
going to surrender to "The Man" by getting cable TV
though, and like Mrs. Slocum I am unanimous in that.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 13:26:11 -0700, El Castor

College was fun for being around with other vibrant
young people though, and that's a "life experience"
Kids don't want to be around ugly and stupid people
over 25. They have the rest of their lives to do that.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:58:24 -0700, "billbowden"
<bpe...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:

>
>"rumpelstiltskin" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>news:afmvqcpffavjgv1vh...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:21:16 -0700, El Castor
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>Infinity in time and space means that our universe hasn't been around
>>>as long as the blink of a fly's eye and is smaller than one grain of
>>>sand in all the beaches of the world. I don't consider myself to be
>>>religious, but in an infinite universe, it is not unreasonable to
>>>believe anything is possible. In case you haven't seen it, Netflix has
>>>season one of a TV series with a different take on the afterlife, The
>>>Good Place. Trust me, do yourself a favor and watch it.
>>
>>
>> I think I'll take a pass on that. The name definitely sounds
>> like the usual feelgood stinkpot stuff that gave us kkkristianity
>> and Islam and other such blessings. I've hardly ever had
>> indigestion, but that kind of stuff might do it.
>>
>> Infinity is just a mathematical device. Our universe, which
>> is all we know of time and space, is not infinite and "never"
>> will be.
>>
>>
>
>http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk
>
>ESA: What would be the size of the Universe if it was finite?
>
>Joseph Silk:

>It could be as large as 100 t imes the horizon. That means that the Universe

>would be as much as a 100 thousand million parsecs, about 300 thousand
>million light years, if we could measure the topology.

I don't know the exact figure but it is known at least out
to where the first galaxies appear so we can see something.
Weinberg covered that in his wonderful book written for
ordinary folks like thee and me, "The First Three Minutes":
http://tinyurl.com/yakoj8uw

The Universe is still expanding, since the enormousness
of the explosion 13 billion years ago is still pushing it out.
Very strangely, recent measurements suggest that
although one would think that the expansion would be
slowing down (because the explosion is long over so
gravity should be acting to pull things back together),
the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up.
It's hard to imagine how this could be. A fifth "force of
nature" has been proposed to account for it, though it
seems premature to me to propose something so
radically new and otherwise unneeded, until we have
a firmer understanding of what we're seeing.

The strong and the weak forces act on atomic
levels, so we don't see them directly at all, but the
strong force holds atoms together. The weak force
is much weaker and is involved with the decay of
neutrons (and perhaps ultimately, protons) but
unlike the other forces it's asymmetrical and has a
small preference for matter over antimatter. For
that reason, the weak force may be (ISTM) the
reason we have a universe at all, since the
recombination of matter and antimatter that was
arguably the biggest reason for the power of Big
Bang had some leftover matter that didn't have
any antimatter to recombine with, and that small
remainder makes up everything in our universe
except for the brief and relatively infrequent
radioactive actions that briefly create some new
antimatter which quickly gets gobbled up by
explosive recombination with some of the
matter that's all around it.

The two forces we do see everyday are
electromagnetism, which makes the sun shine
and which works over relatively short distances,
and gravity which seemingly has "infinite" reach.
Perhaps that reach isn't quite "infinite" and that's
why the expansion of the universe seems to be
speeding up over vast distances. Or at least
that seems to me a possibility in my ignorance,
such that the weakening of gravity over truly
vast distances might allow it to be overwhelmed
by the power of the other phenomena that are
expansive, such as radioactive decay.

As to what a force "is", I don't think
we've gotten past "A force is a name for
something we don't understand."

[El Castor]

I watched the season on Netflix. If you stream Netflix, it's free. If
I lived in the City, I wouldn't want cable TV either. A friend of ours
lives in an apartment out on the avenues. I helped her with her Indoor
antenna. Pretty decent reception.

[El Castor]

I agree, but is it worth a $50K student loan debt? In some cases a
whole lot more.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:44:18 -0700, El Castor

Other than "American Beauty" which was OK but
that's all, the last movie I saw was "The Pianist"
which was spectacular, a masterpiece IMV, but
of course we kicked the creator of the movie out
of the country because that's what the USA does.
It was probably good for him because he might
not have been able to make "The Pianist" in the
USA because it's not banal enough for the USA.

I'm not a big fan at all of movies. I liked
watching the TV Wodehouse movies with Hugh
Laurie brilliantly playing Bertie, before Laurie
decided he wanted to become a "serious" actor
and became the star of "House", of which I
haven't watched a single complete episode.
I think Laurie is much more famous for
"House" than he is for Bertie, which shows
how out-of-touch I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqU6lz8bGhA

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:49:33 -0700, El Castor

>On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 19:49:06 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> College was fun for being around with other vibrant
>>young people though, and that's a "life experience"
>>Kids don't want to be around ugly and stupid people
>>over 25. They have the rest of their lives to do that.
>
>I agree, but is it worth a $50K student loan debt? In some cases a
>whole lot more.

I certainly couldn't afford anything like that. I only
paid about $100 a year for classes and about $100
a year for books as I recall, and graduated without
any debt at all. I'm glad I went though it just for
the advantage of having a degree, but although my
major was electrical engineering, my favourite
classes by far were the literature electives of
which I took all I could fit in.

[Tzatz Ziki]

On 9/5/2017 4:45 AM, Gary wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:44:05 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST <free....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 5:21:09 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>>> Scientists discover strange form of black hole at the heart of Milky Way
>>>

>>> [...]

> Maybe a new planet will be born.

Maybe you're too much of a stupid cracker-ass bigot to understand that
this isn't how planets happen. NOTHING EMERGES FROM A BLACK HOLE, YOU
DIMWIT!

> And when this Earth becomes uninhabitable -- the folks
> here can move there. Somewhat like some Ancient Aliens did when they came here.

Damn, you just explode with cracker-ass bigoted stupid.

[El Castor]

Netflix has acres of TV. A season ends, and goes to Netflix before the
next season of the series begins. Nice thing is that can watch the
Netflix episodes whenever you want since the entire season is posted
as a block. Netflix is even making its own. Stranger Things was a
Netflix exclusive and has been nominated for an Emmy. I imagine you
would like it.

[El Castor]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:16:09 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:

Those days are over. You can spend more than $500 on a single book.
The cost of a college education has risen to meet the student loans
available to pay for it.

[billbowden]

"Tzatz Ziki" <g...@lic.dip> wrote in message
news:oorvvd$ami$4...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On 9/5/2017 4:45 AM, Gary wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:44:05 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
>> <free....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 5:21:09 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>>>> Scientists discover strange form of black hole at the heart of Milky
>>>> Way
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>> Maybe a new planet will be born.
>
> Maybe you're too much of a stupid cracker-ass bigot to understand that
> this isn't how planets happen. NOTHING EMERGES FROM A BLACK HOLE, YOU
> DIMWIT!
>

Some energy emerges from black holes according to Hawking.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160107-these-are-the-discoveries-that-made-stephen-hawking-famous

The end result is that the black hole radiates energy, now known as Hawking
radiation, while gradually getting smaller. In other words, Hawking had
proved himself wrong: black holes can get smaller after all. This is
tantamount to saying that the black hole will slowly evaporate, and that it
is not truly black at all.

[billbowden]

"rumpelstiltskin" <x...@y.com> wrote in message

news:nga1rchmivtagh03f...@4ax.com...

A force is what is needed to accelerate a mass of 1 Kgm at a rate of 1 meter
per second in free space. The force is known as a Newton.

.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:16:29 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

>Some energy emerges from black holes according to Hawking.
>
>http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160107-these-are-the-discoveries-that-made-stephen-hawking-famous
>
>The end result is that the black hole radiates energy, now known as Hawking
>radiation, while gradually getting smaller. In other words, Hawking had
>proved himself wrong: black holes can get smaller after all. This is
>tantamount to saying that the black hole will slowly evaporate, and that it
>is not truly black at all.

Yes. The time of the "heat death" of the universe has been
calculated, at some inconceivably far away date that can only
be expressed in scientific notation. "Heat Death" is when, in
effect, time is finished, because all the black holes have
evaporated and all that's left is photons speeding through an
immense void, so far apart from each other that they almost
never interact.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:51:35 -0700, "billbowden"

>"rumpelstiltskin" <x...@y.com> wrote in message

<snip>

>> As to what a force "is", I don't think
>> we've gotten past "A force is a name for
>> something we don't understand."
>>
>>
>
>A force is what is needed to accelerate a mass of 1 Kgm at a rate of 1 meter
>per second in free space. The force is known as a Newton.

That's like saying that a coconut is something that falls
off a tree and kills a monkey by hitting it on the head.
It describes something that a coconut does, something
that's very important to monkeys (including humans!)
but it doesn't say anything about what a coconut is.

[rumpelstiltskin]

That's very sad indeed. Education has become just
another entrapment to keep the American people
constantly struggling, like fancy cars or vacations that
they have to force themselves into thinking they're
enjoying because they've been conditioned to want
something to brag (to others and to themselves)
about

[El Castor]

Higher education has become another example of a left wing bureaucracy
run amok. You probably saw the list of bureaucrats feeding off the
trough at my old high school. They even feel compelled (or is it
enabled?) to be politically correct and have two principals -- one
Black female and one Hispanic male.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 12:41:41 -0700, El Castor

Kids don't go into debt to attend high school, so it has no
relevance to the vastly greater cost of college these days.

[El Castor]

The same attitudes that will fill a high school office with rows of
desks will do the same at UC Berkeley. UC, for instance, has a
Division of Equity & Inclusion. I shudder to think how many pay checks
that thing generates.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:01:57 -0700, El Castor

>On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:36:25 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Kids don't go into debt to attend high school, so it has no
>>relevance to the vastly greater cost of college these days.
>>
>The same attitudes that will fill a high school office with rows of
>desks will do the same at UC Berkeley. UC, for instance, has a
>Division of Equity & Inclusion. I shudder to think how many pay checks
>that thing generates.

I was talking about student debt. You tried to
finesse the argument somewhere else, as always.

[El Castor]

The Division of Equity & Inclusion, and all the other bureaucracy is
the reason for that student debt. Another issue is books. When you and
I went to college, books were trivial. Now ...

"The College Board estimates that the average student in this country
spends around $1,200 a year on books and supplies. A single book can
cost as much as $200. Between 2002 and 2013, the price of college
textbooks rose 82 percent—nearly three times the rate of inflation,
according to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office."
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/college-textbook-costs-more-outrageous-than-ever.html

Do we really need acres of buildings, marble columns, and bell towers
to teach? In this day of the Internet the UC system, in which the
bloated administrative staff outnumbers teaching staff more than 2 to
1, could be supplying books and teaching materials for download on a
PC or tablet. There could be creative methods to use the Internet and
radically reduce the cost of higher education, but instead ...

"April 25, 2017, 9:40 a.m.
University of California administration is paying excessive salaries
and mishandling funds, state audit says"
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-university-of-california-administration-1493137774-htmlstory.html

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 14:10:46 -0700, El Castor
<DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 05:50:23 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:01:57 -0700, El Castor
>>>On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:36:25 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Kids don't go into debt to attend high school, so it has no
>>>>relevance to the vastly greater cost of college these days.
>>>>
>>>The same attitudes that will fill a high school office with rows of
>>>desks will do the same at UC Berkeley. UC, for instance, has a
>>>Division of Equity & Inclusion. I shudder to think how many pay checks
>>>that thing generates.
>>
>>
>> I was talking about student debt. You tried to
>>finesse the argument somewhere else, as always.
>
>The Division of Equity & Inclusion, and all the other bureaucracy is
>the reason for that student debt. Another issue is books. When you and
>I went to college, books were trivial. Now ...

I never heard of that Division, but I don't care what
it is or what it's called. We shouldn't be saddling kids
with outrageous debt as a "reward" for them working
to become successful and productive members of
society, IMV. If the "Division of Equity and Division"
is what's standing in the way, smash it, and smash
the people who put it in place so that they could
direct more money to their collaborators.

>
>"The College Board estimates that the average student in this country
>spends around $1,200 a year on books and supplies. A single book can
>cost as much as $200. Between 2002 and 2013, the price of college
>textbooks rose 82 percent—nearly three times the rate of inflation,
>according to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office."
>https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/college-textbook-costs-more-outrageous-than-ever.html
>
>Do we really need acres of buildings, marble columns, and bell towers
>to teach? In this day of the Internet the UC system, in which the
>bloated administrative staff outnumbers teaching staff more than 2 to
>1, could be supplying books and teaching materials for download on a
>PC or tablet. There could be creative methods to use the Internet and
>radically reduce the cost of higher education, but instead ...

No, we don't.

>
>"April 25, 2017, 9:40 a.m.
>University of California administration is paying excessive salaries
>and mishandling funds, state audit says"
>http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-university-of-california-administration-1493137774-htmlstory.html

Other countries can do it, without much trouble, why can't
we? The reason is obvious: the USA is worshipping at the
altar of Mammon. The USA *ALWAYS* worships at the
altar of Mammon. It's what's "wrong" with the USA.

[billbowden]

"El Castor" <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote in message
news:hoj8rc5n01foq9bum...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 05:50:23 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:01:57 -0700, El Castor
>>>On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:36:25 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Kids don't go into debt to attend high school, so it has no
>>>>relevance to the vastly greater cost of college these days.
>>>>
>>>The same attitudes that will fill a high school office with rows of
>>>desks will do the same at UC Berkeley. UC, for instance, has a
>>>Division of Equity & Inclusion. I shudder to think how many pay checks
>>>that thing generates.
>>
>>
>> I was talking about student debt. You tried to
>>finesse the argument somewhere else, as always.
>
> The Division of Equity & Inclusion, and all the other bureaucracy is
> the reason for that student debt. Another issue is books. When you and
> I went to college, books were trivial. Now ...
>
> "The College Board estimates that the average student in this country
> spends around $1,200 a year on books and supplies. A single book can
> cost as much as $200. Between 2002 and 2013, the price of college

> textbooks rose 82 percent-nearly three times the rate of inflation,

> according to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office."
> https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/college-textbook-costs-more-outrageous-than-ever.html
>

When I was in school we could sell the text books back to the book store for
maybe 70% of the original cost. I once got a physics text book for Xmas that
I didn't need and sold it to the college bookstore, or traded it for
something else just to get the cash value.

[islander]

Jeff is complaining about the efforts at universities to assure that
minorities have access to higher education. This is not the reason for
the high cost of education, but Jeff seems to search for any excuse to
discriminate.

The major reason for the increased cost of education, at least at public
universities, is the residual effects of the 2008 financial crisis.
State budgets for higher education plummeted and the costs had to be
covered by the students (or their parents). Meanwhile, the bankers were
more than willing to loan money to desperate students and their parents.
Of course, there was also an explosion of mail-order universities that
whose business model included debt service of student debt. Many of
those students never got a degree, or found that it was useless when
they looked for a job.

Some states are now sufficiently recovered that there is a return to
free education in public universities.

[El Castor]

No I'm not. That department is just one example of the acres of
bureaucrats that outnumber instructors and researchers more than two
to one in the UC system. I'm sure you are aware of the disgraceful
audit received by Janet Napolitano. As for any excuse to
discriminate, you haven't heard me complain about Whites who are
vastly outnumbered by Asians at UC Berkeley. If the Asians are better
qualified, so be it. Blacks, by the way, are outnumbered four to one
by "South Asians" alone, eight to one by Chinese, and nearly two to
one just by Koreans. I guess that Division of Equity & Inclusion isn't
doing much for them, and I do have to wonder how many of those Asians
are US citizens. Oops, I just looked it up -- 24.4% of UC Berkeley
students are not US citizens, and I doubt that DACA students are
included in that number. How many American Black students were turned
away in favor of paying Asians?

I should add that I looked up Stanford. Much more to congratulate
there.

>The major reason for the increased cost of education, at least at public
>universities, is the residual effects of the 2008 financial crisis.

Really? How about this from December 21, 2006 ...
"According to the College Board, the price of higher education rose
sharply again last year following trends over recent decades. The
annual costs at four-year public and private colleges increased by 6.3
and 5.9 percent respectively, a rate well ahead of inflation. Since
1986, tuition and fees at public and private colleges have grown at
staggering rates: 122 percent at public and 80 percent at private
colleges (after adjusting for inflation)."
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/the-real-problem-rising-college-costs

[islander]

You are, of course, cherry picking the top tier schools. I am
addressing state schools where there are a lot of state school systems
that have higher tuition and fees than California. There are 13 four
year state universities in conservative states that charge higher
tuition and fees than California. Overall, California is below the norm
for state university systems. I will concede, however, that state
universities in conservative states charge lower tuition and fees for
residents than those in liberal states, primarily due to universities in
NE states AND the considerably lower salaries for instructors in
conservative states. The results are predictable. The percentage of
the population in conservative states with a Bachelor's degree or an
advanced degree is considerably less than for liberal states despite the
lower tuition and fees for residents. That says something about the
health of higher education in conservative states. It is no wonder that
the economy is healthier in liberal states as measured by GDP and
personal consumption expenditures.