BruceVC

Glad you are alright, 7 years there was an outbreak of meningitis in one of the gyms in the south of where I live. 5 people died, all of them bodybuilders and one of them was one of my best friends. The hospital initially misdiagnosed his illness and when they realized what it was it was too late

My entire working career has been at colleges and universities. This may give more/less weight to my argument, depending on your feeling. I also was one of those financially challenged students who started with a local two year college because I could afford anything else, then transferred on to the local 4 year university. I took no loans out to finance my education - something I'm greatful for now. Yes your career is very relevant to this discussion, you are like Hurlshot. You are active in the industry. Its hard to argue this isn't the best source of feedback as its firsthand

This depends on your area and job requirements, and the degree type. A termianal associates (typically called an "Applied Associates") may meet eligiblity standards for a job or make you eligible for certification for a job. A regular assoicates may make you more marketable in general, but also in some areas may make you eligible for some jobs that requires some minimum of schooling (professional proctoring of tests, teachers aide, etc). This is a misperception of people who believe that spending a million dollars somehow makes something worth more. While it obviously differs by state and accredeting body, many community colleges are just as rigerous in their educational requirements as a 4 year school. But this is true for all educational institutions. This isn't more true for community college than any part of the liberal arts program at a university's first two years are (general lit, general history, general science, etc). However as access institutions they do tend to have larger programs and capacity to handle students who need preparatory skills in English or mathematics. Define "proper degree". A lot of it depends on the mission of a the college. A community college with a skill mission may heavily focus on career skills and technical skills (it might be part liberal arts and part technical school). A community college with a transfer focus may focus on providing a general education for students to transfer to traditional four year baccalaureate programs. They don't have "subpar education" unless there is something wrong with the college (or they're not appropriately accredited by a proper regulating authority). This depends on your area and job requirements, and the degree type. A termianal associates (typically called an "Applied Associates") may meet eligiblity standards for a job or make you eligible for certification for a job. A regular assoicates may make you more marketable in general, but also in some areas may make you eligible for some jobs that requires some minimum of schooling (professional proctoring of tests, teachers aide, etc). This is a misperception of people who believe that spending a million dollars somehow makes something worth more. While it obviously differs by state and accredeting body, many community colleges are just as rigerous in their educational requirements as a 4 year school. But this is true for all educational institutions. This isn't more true for community college than any part of the liberal arts program at a university's first two years are (general lit, general history, general science, etc). However as access institutions they do tend to have larger programs and capacity to handle students who need preparatory skills in English or mathematics. Define "proper degree". A lot of it depends on the mission of a the college. A community college with a skill mission may heavily focus on career skills and technical skills (it might be part liberal arts and part technical school). A community college with a transfer focus may focus on providing a general education for students to transfer to traditional four year baccalaureate programs. They don't have "subpar education" unless there is something wrong with the college (or they're not appropriately accredited by a proper regulating authority). Nice, another very fascinating post. But you guys seen to have very opposing views. I hope Hurlshot comments as he is involved in the industry

It's pretty simple. I personally know people in the military who have been there post 2011 and are going there again in a couple of weeks. They will tell you we never left. Just about anyone in the military that isn't a lying POS talking head on TV will tell you we never left. And it's no small sore spot with many people in the military. That Reuters article is a blatant lie. Vals thats a very serious accusation you making. You realize most people would need more evidence from you to believe it?

Community Colleges are colleges that 'service the community'. This may mean a wide degree of things, but typically they offer associate level collegiate degrees and various amounts of community/career enrichment courses. They are usually open access - particularly to those within their community. With the proper accreditation, an associates degree from one may serve as the first two years of a baccalaureate degree. The objection to the idea as I understand it is based on how it'll be paid for (federal taxes). These views are very interesting and they may have changed my initial point Are you saying that end of the day the majority of people who go through these colleagues don't end up really benefitting from them because of the subpar education and there attitude? So they effectively don't get a proper degree or they just don't complete the degree therefore making it useless?

The USA never left Iraq. That's a myth. We're sending a whole bunch more troops later this month to that place we supposedly pulled our troops out of. The USA isn't leaving Iraq anytime in the remotely foreseeable future, any more than it is leaving Saudi Arabia anytime in the remotely foreseeable future. It's quite dug in. Now this could be an interesting debate and I would like us to have it The Americans left Iraq and effectively ended their military contribution in 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-withdrawal-idUSTRE7BH03320111218 Yes there were private contractors still doing some military work and of course some business partnerships but officailly the USA left Iraq If you don't agree they left in 2011 then can you explain exactly why you don't accept that ?

Guys I'm going to be honest I am missing what the objection to this idea is. I have tried to understand it but clearly I'm missing something..but I need to ask a very relevant question and then I'll make my main point Are these Community Colleagues the same as university? In other words you need at least your grade 12 and then you basically get a degree at the Colleague ?

In my experience its just a cynical expression. "Oil" usually representing a variable material interest. Hahaha. Come on Baro, lets try to be reasonable now Of course every single country has there own self-interest in mind when they act in the global arena But my issue is there seems to be no positive recognition to the decisions made by Western countries when they intervene in other countries affairs when the reality is its more effort for them, in other words it would much easier to not intervene I can give plenty of examples but lets just discuss one, when the Yazidi where trapped on that mountain in Iraq ISIS was quite prepared to commit genocide against them. But the USA intervened and broke the siege and allowed the majority of the Yazidi to survive. Do you really think the USA wanted to be involved in Iraq again? Of course not, this was a humanitarian mission because the reality was no one was really prepared to commit military resources unless the USA did ? Do you not think the USA deserves some credit ? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/40000-iraqis-stranded-mountain-isis-death-threat http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/20/world/meast/isis-violence/index.html

Well if every single time the West intervenes in any conflict and the reason that people give is "its because of oil " then you need to question that logic ? I have acknowledged before that certain interventions were based on economic interest, like Iraq, but sometimes the reason for intervention is humanitarian or because there is a real threat or military justification.

Serious question, how do you deal with kids that are ok with murder? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11338842/Paris-attacks-Two-worlds-collide-on-street-where-terrorists-lived.html This article highlights a real social problem that many European countries are grappling with. In France you have groups of Muslims who don't feel part of mainstream French culture and feel alienated from French society despite several opportunities presented to them There is also an effective campaign of propaganda from the likes of ISIS that resonates with many disenfranchised Muslim youth, they believe that the West is truly involved in a crusade against Islam. Even this article they talk about the anger that 60 years ago 200 Algerians were killed by French police. But during the Algerian civil war several hundred thousand Algerians were killed by extremists...where is the criticism about this violence? So whats the solution? I suppose you have to work harder at getting the message across that France wants to integrate all its citizens into its society. But to be honest this will only work for some. Other people needed to be arrested and or killed as they won't be prepared to compromise But this anti-Western sentiment from the Muslim communities within countries like France really does only represent a small minority of the overall Muslim community so we shouldn't see this as a social crisis. Im confident most Muslims are very happy living in France and being part of French culture "A muslim cannot feel welcomed in a non-muslim society. If the society has the same values as islam, then the muslim will feel welcomed" <-- Arguments like that are thrown around everyday. But my point is that how do you deal with neighbourhoods where people think murder is justified when insulted? How do you deal with such alienation on a such a profound level? I sure don't know. Well no Western country will ever have the same values as a country that for example is in the Middle East because Western countries are Democracies and practice freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I don't think most Muslims expect that from Western countries, I'm sure they are aware of the difference between France and lets say Saudi Arabia ? But yes if you read how that teacher was treated in that school, its very worrying and I would think the solution has to come from within the Muslim community. Its up to the parents and respected members of the Muslim community to get the message across that France is not " un-Islamic " and French society is not your enemy? But I agree its a tough one to try to convince people who want to kill there teacher for asking people to have one minute of silence

I would love to believe that I can understand how frustrating it must seem for some European countries, all these immigrants arrive and start living off certain social services. They initially get supported by tax paying citizens of a country. Then they get jobs and start contributing towards the economy....but then you see incidents like this Paris shooting where you see all this vitriol and hatred directed towards the country that basically gave them a home and livelihood. So you almost want to say " why do we even bother letting in people who just don't appreciate what they have " But we do live in a global world and places like the EU have fairly open borders for certain citizens so you can't really stop the movement of economic migrants..and thats what most of these immigrants are . They are looking for economic opportunities, we see this in South Africa all the time with many foreigners who come to South Africa looking for work from places like Zimbabwe and Mozambique So I still think the likes of Paris shooters represent a small part of the overall French muslim community as we can see from the Unity march and the condemnation from almost all mainstream Muslim organisations in France

Serious question, how do you deal with kids that are ok with murder? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11338842/Paris-attacks-Two-worlds-collide-on-street-where-terrorists-lived.html This article highlights a real social problem that many European countries are grappling with. In France you have groups of Muslims who don't feel part of mainstream French culture and feel alienated from French society despite several opportunities presented to them There is also an effective campaign of propaganda from the likes of ISIS that resonates with many disenfranchised Muslim youth, they believe that the West is truly involved in a crusade against Islam. Even this article they talk about the anger that 60 years ago 200 Algerians were killed by French police. But during the Algerian civil war several hundred thousand Algerians were killed by extremists...where is the criticism about this violence? So whats the solution? I suppose you have to work harder at getting the message across that France wants to integrate all its citizens into its society. But to be honest this will only work for some. Other people needed to be arrested and or killed as they won't be prepared to compromise But this anti-Western sentiment from the Muslim communities within countries like France really does only represent a small minority of the overall Muslim community so we shouldn't see this as a social crisis. Im confident most Muslims are very happy living in France and being part of French culture

The oil fields of Nigeria are no where near the areas that Boko Haram operates in. Also you do realize that the USA is now the worlds biggest producer of oil and natural gas http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html This is a big problem for conspiracy theorists who will now need to find new reasons for justifying Western intervention because the whole point " the USA only intervenes when there is oil " becomes a moot point

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ? But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. HA! Good Fun! But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail? am trying to get You to explain in more detail. why is the conflicts in sub-saharan africa... different. you has, in the past, applauded western restraint in those geographic hotspots that had potential to become more serious conflagrations. please note that Gromnir is not actual advocating use of military force. that being said, we wishes to know why your pov regarding the possibility o' a western military solution in sub-saharan africa is different than other geographical loci o' conflict. HA! Good Fun! Okay but I'm still not clear on what conflicts in sub-saharan Africa you are talking about, can you be more specific? I have always supported Western intervention in certain conflicts, like Libya. But what I don't support is the AU doing nothing about real African issues, like Ebola and Boko Haram, and then waiting for the international community ( which translates to the West ) intervening to implement a certain change or prevent a humanitarian catastrophe

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ? But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. HA! Good Fun! To be honest Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram have been two of the most difficult, dangerous and disruptive military threats to the African region that the continent has probably seen in decades. These groups don't threaten the sub-saharan region so there seems no real interest from SADEC in trying to resolve these issues, despite the fact that this is indeed an AU problem and this shouldn't be seen in just a regional context But to answer your question there are countries in the sub-saharan region, who do have the financial means, like Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa who could contribute meaningfully towards an AU military mission or help to establish what has been called an African Reactionary Force where all countries in the AU would commit resources. This reactionary force would be used within the continent to address African conflicts, this would mean that the AU is not dependent on the UN funding or Western troops to supplement any AU force But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail?

There are plenty of very well informed, objective gaming websites. RPGCodex for me would be great but there is a lack of moderation. Too much free speech and offensive comments for someone like me RPS and Gamasutra offer excellent gaming insights. Despite what people will tell you they aren't "hardcore " SJ websites. They have the occasional article about SJ issues but there information outside of SJ issues is vast and relevant Gamebanshee, still one of the favorites. Very gamer focused and balanced articles

Thats interesting, I was always under the impression that death was inevitable in Project Zomboid. But it seems like you have found a way of long term survival ?

Mmmm....no I wouldn't say so. Romance can possibly be part of a story as your Romance arc can influence a characters actions but I don't consider the act of sex as part of the story? Its more a component of Romance

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ? But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram

As difficult as it is to believe, there are some of us who are immune to this series' charms. (I think Shamus Young encapsulates my feelings on The Witcher perfectly) With so many "old school" RPGs being released, I have little desire to play some heavily-actionised AAA RPG, especially one that embodies almost everything I hate in fantasy settings. That was an interesting read but very critical of the Witcher games in all aspects ?

This is a very insightful post. It soberly and accurately captures the current state of GG

Please show me a textbook from the 50s that says Africa never had it's own civilizations. I've got an encyclopedia from the 50s sitting a room away that's got all sorts of information on African civilizations. Vals stop nitpicking, he isn't being literal

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think? Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive. However. First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not. And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong. Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I'd use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational. Fair enough, I support the intellectual principle of having two different opinions on a matter. So you right its not wrong to question something, the issue being when does the questioning stop? Questioning stops usually when answers are found. If answers are not found a question generally remains open. Have you ever stopped questioning why you're on planet earth? Or perhaps you've never questioned that? For those of us who have tackled that age old unanswered question, the question generally remains open within you unless you've found an answer. Some out there accept the answer to that question from others on faith, while others do not. This is just one example, but it's basic philosophy and applies to pretty much everything. You right, I'm an agnostic and often I question and want to understand creation and evolution and our purpose on earth. Its interminable the questioning as I obviously can't just accept things on faith, sometimes I wish I could but I just can't But if there was a finite answer I wouldn't question it anymore. And for somethings there are finite answers. For example " did Germany lose WW2" ...as far as conventional understanding goes the answer to this is an emphatic "yes "...why would you still question that?

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think? Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive. However. First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not. And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong. Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I'd use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational. Fair enough, I support the intellectual principle of having two different opinions on a matter. So you right its not wrong to question something, the issue being when does the questioning stop?

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think?