backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by Ringold.. on Oct 3 at 7:08 PM


  (Source: maxupdates.tv)
Thanks to two new bills, there is financial relief at last

Whether you're racking up tuition fees now or still paying student loans after graduation, you know one thing is for sure: College is expensive. To make matters worse, the spending doesn't end at a semester of classes -- there's books that need to be purchased as well, and they're worth more than a little bit of pocket change.

But if you're going to school in California, a bit of relief has finally come your way in the form of two bills: SB 1052 and SB 1053. 

Both bills, which were crafted by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), will allow California college students to download up to 50 core textbooks for free in the form of e-books. The e-books are for lower-division courses and are for classes at the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges. 

More specifically, SB 1052 allows for the development of the e-books and the creation of the California Open Education Resources Council for e-book approvals. SB 1053 has developed the California Digital Open Source Library to store the new e-books. 

"Many students are paying more than $1,000 every year on their textbooks, sometimes having to choose between buying the books they need or paying for food and other living expenses," said Steinberg. 

The new e-book bills were signed by Governor Jerry Brown on Thursday. They are expected to go into effect starting in the 2013-14 school year. 

Digital textbooks are certainly becoming the new way of learning in institutions around the globe. This new form of educational offerings was further boosted by Apple earlier this year, who released iBooks 2 and iBooks Author that allow for the creation of digital textbooks and makes them available for purchase on the iPad. 

Source: CA.gov



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: We all pay in one form or another
By iwanttobehef on 10/1/2012 5:17:44 PM , Rating: 1
You have made the same idiotic argument before. Get your facts straight. South Carolina attacked a federal fort before Lincoln even took office. I haven't checked to see if the rebels were so incompetent as to have not drawn blood. I thought there were no fatalities, but this is kind of splitting hairs.

What kind of schooling do you have in South Carolina?


By ebakke on 10/1/2012 5:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
<chant>FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!</chant>


RE: We all pay in one form or another
By Ringold on 10/1/2012 10:52:56 PM , Rating: 4
What a tool. The South wanted to leave peaceably, any reading of history will show that. They had no desire to spill unnecessary blood.

To further point out your sheer ignorance, if your assertion was true, after the First Battle of Bull Run the confederates could've very easily marched right in to D.C., undefended at that point due to their army being shattered, and they could've very easily ended the war right then. Killed whoever they wanted, burned the city down if they wanted, etc.

But no. They let the Union run. Lee at no point had any desire to do undue damage to the North. For Lee, they were brothers -- fellow graduates of West Point, no less. Every rational historical source describes the South's goals as very narrow; not conquest, simply being allowed to go their own way. Any thing they did, they did because the North didn't want to let them go.

If you want to call that belligerence or whatever, then you must think pretty lowly of those Syrians dieing by the hundreds fighting against a regime that doesn't want to let them go, either.

Even at the end, his officers urged him to let the army disperse to the bush, switch to guerrilla warfare, slowly murder the yankee's until they lost the will to go on -- Vietnam before Vietnam was even known. Lee, again, had no desire to put his country through that.

I'd make a joke about what kind of schooling you have, but it makes me wonder if you have any schooling at all on the matter.

As for Licoln being a tyrant, historians will not disagree, no matter what their opinion of him, because the facts are straight-forward. Political dissent during the war is something one did knowing it probably ended up with you hanging from a tree, or, if you were a newspaper that disagreed from the official line, it likely meant your newspaper press could get tossed in to the river at any minute by citizens...wearing blue uniforms.

'Lincoln, The War President' is a good book on the matter. It still ends up revering him if I remember right, but details scores of profound violations of civil liberties and the constitution. Lincoln could've very possibly died in jail if not assassinated. Just because you have a boner for the guy doesn't excuse ignorance of fact.


RE: We all pay in one form or another
By iwanttobehef on 10/2/2012 5:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
Did you just compare the democratically elected president of the US to a middle eastern dictator? Did you just compare people fighting to gain their freedom with people fighting to keep people enslaved?

Epic Fail

You are entitled to your opinion.
The facts say the first shots were fired by the south and when the opportunity arose the south did invade the north. Sounds like a peace loving people to me... not.

Why Lee didn't attack the capitol after the battle of Bull Run? Maybe it was because he had a green army too that had just learned that an inexperienced army on the attack was more apt to loose. Or maybe Lee didn't attack then because he didn't assume command of the army of Northern Virginia for nearly another year.

I have never disputed Lee's genius, but to think that his was the only opinion in the South is assinine. What I do dispute is the fallacy of the "war of northern aggression" on an innocent, peace loving, southern people fighting for states rights.


By The Raven on 10/2/2012 7:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you just compare the democratically elected president of the US to a middle eastern dictator? Did you just compare people fighting to gain their freedom with people fighting to keep people enslaved?

While it is not apples and apples you are oversimplifying it.
If half the country is willing to fight to the death over the wishes of the federal gov't it doesn't sound very democratic.
And what else would you call a president who attacks his own people? Sound like a dictator to me.

Again I am not saying Lincoln=Assad, but rather that the comparison is not as black and white as you put it.

And as far as fighting to keep people enslaved? They were fighting for their FREEDOM to use slaves. Which at the time was not such a disgusting idea as it is now and The North BTW was very happy to use all the products coming from the slaves. (Not to mention slavery was on its way out anyway.) Again, not to jump to the defense of slave owners but you are greatly oversimplifying.

Which way do you look at the abortion issue? Pro-life vs. Pro-death or Pro-choice vs. Anti-choice? Or maybe Pro-life vs. Anti-life or Pro-choice vs. Pro-vag police?


By Ringold on 10/3/2012 7:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you just compare the democratically elected president of the US to a middle eastern dictator?


Hitler was democratically elected. Chavez stirs up all sorts of trouble, democratically elected. The Bolshevik rebellion which brought Stalin to power in Russia, which led to millions purged and scores more in forced labor, was a popular movement! What matters are what they do. You're just trying to hide behind a false veneer.

quote:
You are entitled to your opinion. The facts say the first shots were fired by the south and when the opportunity arose the south did invade the north.


I deal in facts here, which you're only loosely acquainted with. The Confederates, you'll note, didn't march north until forced, and it was partly a strategic move. They needed to stay on the move, and they hoped it'd show the yanks it wasn't worth the fight. The South really got pounded when it tried to dig in and fight trench warfare against what amounted to the Zerg.

quote:
Why Lee didn't attack the capitol after the battle of Bull Run? Maybe


We don't have to say "maybe," since historians have done the work for us. D.C. was a short march away, some of his men were eager to do it. Nothing would've stopped them. Nothing! Burning D.C. was simply not what they wanted. Again, they wanted to leave peacefully.

quote:
What I do dispute is the fallacy of the "war of northern aggression" on an innocent, peace loving, southern people fighting for states rights.


A popular movement of the people of the south wanted to part ways. Any government that attempts to force them from doing so after diplomatic processes have failed seems to be an aggressor to me. How else do you define it?

I'd encourage you to find a group of historical documents that prove the South was interested in truly by the aggressor with some goal other than parting ways with the North. That'd require documents among the CSA leadership and generals seeking, say, retribution, slaughtering yanks, or acquiring addition territory. It's not just my opinion; those documents simply don't exist. I think you've just listened a little too much to popular left-leaning, history-of-the-victor mythology, and not done enough research.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki