|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article , Alun writes: That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting defaults on student and other loans. The problem with that is that I don't think you can write off student loans through bankruptcy. I'm not sure if you can or cannot. Anybody know for sure? Yes and no: from http://www.mdbankruptcylaw.com/lawgu...u_cant_pay.asp Another possible solution is to discharge your student loan in bankruptcy. However, due to a 1998 change in the bankruptcy law, this is harder than ever to do. In general, you can discharge a student loan in bankruptcy only if you can prove that repaying the loan would be a severe hardship for you. There are several factors that courts consider in making this determination, but suffice it to say, it's a very difficult standard to meet. At one time, many students simply completed their education, and as a matter of course, declared bankruptcy and wiped out their debts (HA! America's best and brightest, eh?) After it caught on that they were doing this, the law was changed. Guess I wasn't one of the best and brightest - I paid all mine back in full! So a person that declares bankruptcy has to continue repayment unless they can prove they simply can't pay. And that isn't all that likely to happen. Yup, they'll just renegotiate the loan but it's still there. So, you may not get graduates going intentionally bankrupt, but the inability to pay it off may lead more people into bankruptcy. They may then still owe the loan, but it won't get paid back. Either way spells trouble. Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage" Here's one data point: In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania, tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10 times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope. Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the weekends, summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that $3000/year tuition. If a kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours per year, there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5 an hour and put in the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only about 1/6 of the tuition. That's just not right. No argument there. Back home in the UK they used to give everyone grants. They were means tested, and of course if your parents were middle income you would be the poorest student in college. Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart enough to get in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones paid their way and the rest got various forms of help but did not have to start out their professional lives way in debt. However, now they are phasing out grants and bringing in loans. This is also a big mistake. Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time. The loans and their repayment are pretty reasonable. The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college cost so much?" You actually do know, don't you? I'm not sure. Seems to me that at the bottom of it all is the fact that people will pay the inflated tuitions because colege is seen as an absolute necessity these days. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... A local bike race decided to try using cell phones as an experiment last year. The hams were along, with the knowledge that we might be "redundant in the future. They found out: Every person had to be called separately. When a message had to go to the whole group, everyone had to be called. Those who were out of coverage range did not get the messages. Coverage over the entire course was pretty bad. Using cell phones was an immediate and complete failure. they realized this on the first call that had to go to everyone. They couldn't figure all that out ahead of time? Amazingly enough, no! Cell phones are seductive little things. After all you can call around the world, send pictures of whatever, and even look up your email on the web with them. So how on earth can such a wonderful instrument *not* be good at running a race? Imagine, each and every participant with their own little radio, ready for direct contact. Well, there you have it: They did not understand their communications needs. Any conclusion may be reached with insufficient thought! Can I steal that phrase? It's the perfect companion to this one: Certainly! I kid of thought you would like that one. "If it happens, it must be possible." Sounds to me like the hams were smart enough to simply let them try it and see the problems first-hand. Yup. All of us that had done events before just chuckled and waited. First call for our help came through a couple minutes after the start. Fortunate that you folks were there. A young lady that fell and got a pavement rash certainly thought so. We got there first aid, a repair truck, and back in the race. Year before that, a fellow had a collision with a rear view mirror on a car and messed his hand up. Those same problems surfaced in groups searching for wreckage from the space shuttle disaster last year. Of course cell phones *do* have uses in those situations. Where one specific person needs to talk to another specific person, and both are in the coverage area, they're perfect. Sure enough. But when many people need to hear instructions at the same time, or if the area is large and rural, You need a multi-mode system, and not just line of site low power stuff. Seems to me that *both* have a role. Cell phones work for some things, but the idea that they can replace radio operators is best advanced by those that don't really know how that particular job is done. You mean like folks who comment on marathons without ever having been involved in one other than as a spectator? Or like folks who comment on amateur radio without ever having been involved other than as a spectator? Well, when you put it *that* way, yup! We call 'em "sidewalk superintendents" or "armchair athletes". http://www.lamarathon.com/2004/volunteers.php Some hams and ham equipment spotted in the pix. Of course. http://www.doitsports.com/volunteer/info.tcl?job_id=488 (sign up for radio operators - only licensed hams need apply) Really? I thunk all you needed was a cell phone and the ability to say "can you hear me now?....how about now? 8^) That's what some "professionals" would have us believe... Any conclusion is possible given insufficient......... oh wait, I already said that, didn't I? Bears repeating. http://www.cert-la.com/ (scroll down a bit to where it says "ham radio operators wanted") Do you think maybe they put that in as an affirmative action sort of thing? Maybe they just wanted to get the Hams to shut their yap's? ;^) Naw, it's simpler than that. Besides their considerable skills and experience, ham volunteers at events like the LA Marathon provide their own equipment and usually their own transportation and other support. Try hiring 200 "communications professionals" for a day just to supply radio communications and see what happens to the race entry fee. (LA says 200 hams, NYC marathon says 400, but of course NYC is a lot bigger race). The price for professional radio operators would be from 80 to 160 thousand dollars for an 8 hour day, according to my BOE scribbling. Marathon day is a lot longer than 8 hours. Figure that the staff is on the course at least two hours before the starting gun, and that the slowest particiapnts will finish in more than 5-6 hours, plus awards ceremony, cleanup, etc., and it's not an 8 hour day for anybody. With 20,000 participants, that's 4 to 8 dollars tacked on to the entry fee. Of course. I just used the 8 hours as a real back of the envelope thing. You can tie up a lot of time between assignment, training and other meetings. And if you are using professionals they will need paid. - Mike KB3EIA - - Mike KB3EIA - Which reminds me...time to put the running shoes on.. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Alun writes: That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting defaults on student and other loans. The problem with that is that I don't think you can write off student loans through bankruptcy. I'm not sure if you can or cannot. Anybody know for sure? Yes and no: from http://www.mdbankruptcylaw.com/lawgu...u_cant_pay.asp Another possible solution is to discharge your student loan in bankruptcy. However, due to a 1998 change in the bankruptcy law, this is harder than ever to do. In general, you can discharge a student loan in bankruptcy only if you can prove that repaying the loan would be a severe hardship for you. There are several factors that courts consider in making this determination, but suffice it to say, it's a very difficult standard to meet. At one time, many students simply completed their education, and as a matter of course, declared bankruptcy and wiped out their debts (HA! America's best and brightest, eh?) After it caught on that they were doing this, the law was changed. Guess I wasn't one of the best and brightest - I paid all mine back in full! They are definitely the ones that are stupid. That bankruptcy follows them forever. Seven years is the legal time limit, but face it, it's forever. Then when they do get some semblance of credit back, they aren't getting the most favorable rates. So a person that declares bankruptcy has to continue repayment unless they can prove they simply can't pay. And that isn't all that likely to happen. Yup, they'll just renegotiate the loan but it's still there. So, you may not get graduates going intentionally bankrupt, but the inability to pay it off may lead more people into bankruptcy. They may then still owe the loan, but it won't get paid back. Either way spells trouble. Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage" Here's one data point: In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania, tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10 times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope. Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the weekends, summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that $3000/year tuition. If a kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours per year, there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5 an hour and put in the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only about 1/6 of the tuition. That's just not right. No argument there. Back home in the UK they used to give everyone grants. They were means tested, and of course if your parents were middle income you would be the poorest student in college. Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart enough to get in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones paid their way and the rest got various forms of help but did not have to start out their professional lives way in debt. However, now they are phasing out grants and bringing in loans. This is also a big mistake. Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time. The loans and their repayment are pretty reasonable. The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college cost so much?" You actually do know, don't you? I'm not sure. Colleges build a lot of new buildings these days. They are involved in a lot of the research that used to be done by Research and Development divisions of business. Many of them don't get as much support from their State governments as in years past. All of this adds up to increased costs that are driving the education cost inflation. Seems to me that at the bottom of it all is the fact that people will pay the inflated tuitions because colege is seen as an absolute necessity these days. For now. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Marathon day is a lot longer than 8 hours. Figure that the staff is on the course at least two hours before the starting gun, and that the slowest particiapnts will finish in more than 5-6 hours, plus awards ceremony, cleanup, etc., and it's not an 8 hour day for anybody. With 20,000 participants, that's 4 to 8 dollars tacked on to the entry fee. Which reminds me...time to put the running shoes on.. 42 minutes this morning - spring is coming.. You left out another block of time. For a large event, there needs to be a planning/coordination meeting in advance of the marathon that the communications staff would need to attend. Paid operators won't attend that for free either. That's absolutely correct! And it's probably a series of meetings and coordination settings, too. Thanks, Dee. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes: You left out another block of time. For a large event, there needs to be a planning/coordination meeting in advance of the marathon that the communications staff would need to attend. Paid operators won't attend that for free either. Were the very first marathons, especially in the Olympic Games, run by professionals? The Los Angeles 2004 Marathon used LAPD and LAFD personnel who are paid all the time. Do they count in your analysis? Are marathon rules and regulations in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.? Do marathoners and marathon staff need to learn morse code in order to make the event a success? LHA / WMD |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Fortunate that you folks were there. A young lady that fell and got a pavement rash certainly thought so. We got there first aid, a repair truck, and back in the race. Year before that, a fellow had a collision with a rear view mirror on a car and messed his hand up. And while maybe it *could* have been done by "professionals", the fact is that it *was* done by amateurs. Some folks get all bent out of shape by such plain, simple facts. Marathon day is a lot longer than 8 hours. Figure that the staff is on the course at least two hours before the starting gun, and that the slowest particiapnts will finish in more than 5-6 hours, plus awards ceremony, cleanup, etc., and it's not an 8 hour day for anybody. With 20,000 participants, that's 4 to 8 dollars tacked on to the entry fee. Of course. I just used the 8 hours as a real back of the envelope thing. You can tie up a lot of time between assignment, training and other meetings. As Dee pointed out. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Nomen Nescio wrote in message . ..
If true, you're a #1 jerk. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com