Amar Bose To Donate Company To M.I.T.

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amar Bose To Donate Company To M.I.T.

Posted by timothy on Saturday April 30, 2011 @03:22PM from the holy-moley dept.

MBC1977 writes with this eyebrow-raising news from CNN: "'The Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced Friday that [Amar] Bose, the 81-year-old founder of the sound system company that bears his name, has donated the majority of Bose Corp.'s stock to the school.' Very cool indeed!"

275 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Midrange by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-30 15:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe they'll be able to get BOSE to make equipment that is testable for reviews and has some midrange.
1. Re:Midrange by show+me+altoids · 2011-04-30 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  I heard a while back that he was going to give the company away someday to charity, so not that big a surprise.
  
  --
  I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
2. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  wat.. no no
  it's
  "No highs, no lows, must be bose"
  or
  Buy Other Sound Equipment
3. Re:Midrange by MoonBuggy · 2011-04-30 15:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You probably didn't mean anything deep by it, but I find the choice to lump universities under the broad heading of 'charity' an interesting one. Although I think there's little better use for one's money than promoting education, my time spent at a (fairly well-regarded) American university seemed (to my godless commie foreign eyes) a surprisingly commercialised experience. It's clear just from looking at the campus that an awful lot of money is given back by alumni, and this action by Bose further confirms it, but I don't think I could ever get over the voice in the back of my head saying "What about all those times you tried to screw me out of every penny I didn't have?".
  I applaud the efforts of people like Bose in giving something back, and I know this is something of a digression. It just seems odd, from my external perspective, that people are happy giving such vast gifts to organisations that treat their students in such a mercenary manner; or, I suppose, that organisations receiving such vast gifts still feel the need to squeeze their students so much...
4. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:12 · Score: -1
  
  Speaking of education...
  What are three things you CANNOT give a nigger? A black eye, a fat lip and an education!
5. Re:Midrange by bromoseltzer · 2011-04-30 16:20 · Score: 2
  
  There are many ways to look at a university. It's about research, it's about federal funding, it's about raising money from alumni, it's about patent licensing and athletics, it's about recruiting faculty, promoting faculty, about running a big physical plant, internet pipes, etc. etc. Oh, and there are students, too. Teaching is just one of many things that happen there, not the most visible - even at places that claim to emphasize the student experience. Students do get to pay up to around $200K for the privilege of becoming alumni and then being asked to contribute cash. But a big research university actually loses money on every student. They'd be better off financially if they stopped admitting.
  Universities, most of them, are non-profit corporations. You're right they aren't charities in the moral sense, but the US tax laws treat them as if they were. Pity the legislator who suggests repealing the their charitable tax deduction.
  
  --
  Fiat Lux.
6. Re:Midrange by Russianspi · 2011-04-30 16:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I totally agree. My wife and I both graduated with BA's from Christian colleges. She had the typical college finance experience, with the school squeezing every penny that they could out of her, and then sending letters to her (probably for the rest of her life) asking for donations. She liked the school otherwise, but that (although typical) was/is irksome.
  
  I, on the other hand, went to Moody Bible Institute. It is a college that aims to prepare people to do full-time Christian ministry. Since most of these graduates wind up in fields that don't have great earning potential, they don't charge tuition. I'll repeat that: they don't charge tuition. It's not an easy school to get in to, (it's certainly not for everyone) and it is by no means perfect, but it was the right fit for me. (I'm a missionary, but I'm up late tonight doing some open source coding and getting distracted by Slashdot.) Anyway, Moody avoids charging tuition by having a profitable publishing house, as well as a radio station and broadcast media company. All of the profits that they turn from these (as well as some hefty donations) are what keep the financial wheels turning at the school. When I graduated in 2005, they estimated that for my graduating class, the waived tuition amounted to a $78,000 scholarship per graduating student.
  
  I receive letters occasionally from Moody asking for donations, and these are MUCH more easy for me to stomach. I don't have much in the way of spare money at the moment, but if/when I have the means, supporting Moody is something I'd like to do. I appreciate my education, and the fact that I could get through it without taking out ANY student loans, and I'd love to help present that opportunity to others if at all possible.
  
  Anyway, I realize that I'm on a tangent, but I think that Moody Bible Institute is as close to a true non-profit as I've seen any university be.
7. Re:Midrange by gwstuff · 2011-04-30 17:09 · Score: 2
  
  It makes more sense if you weigh the substantial tuition fees against what you get out of a university like MIT in terms of knowledge and the capacity to be successful. The people you speak of, Bose being an example, think the balance tilts towards the latter and try to even it out by giving back to the system. I find it admirable.
8. Re:Midrange by demonlapin · 2011-04-30 17:14 · Score: 2
  
  Although I think there's little better use for one's money than promoting education
  Too bad that universities are largely in the business of granting degrees, not educating.
9. Re:Midrange by MoonBuggy · 2011-04-30 17:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A fair point, and it is admirable, but it's perhaps worth clarifying that I wasn't only referring to tuition (substantial though it is, the aforementioned godless commie government helped me out a lot in that regard) - I can't imagine living with a commercial loan of that size like so many Americans do, but it's straightforward and clear, it's like the sticker price on the education one receives.
  The bit that was unexpected, the bit that really made me think "These guys are in it for the money", was the (sometimes petty, sometimes substantial) hidden costs enforced by university policies. All first years had to live on campus, in housing with rents a good 40%+ above other local options. Many housing plans came with mandatory pre-paid meal plans: distinctly average cafeteria food at rates that work out to $12/meal; an effort to donate all unused pre-pay meals to charity was deemed too costly to implement. Student run societies needed to go through bureaucratic approval in order to purchase food for events from any sources other than the university's private catering contractor. Not only did courses require $70+ textbooks, the campus book store tended to sell them at rates a good 20% higher than Amazon.
  It's beginning to sound like I had a real problem with the place, and that's absolutely not the case. I learned a huge amount and there were parts of the American system that I would love to see adopted in England. It's just jarring to go in expecting a public service organisation, albeit one with a significant up-front cost, and instead find the administration to be treating you as a captive audience of customers.
10. Re:Midrange by artfulshrapnel · 2011-04-30 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think MIT tends to be a bit better in this regard. Their undergraduate degrees aren't much more expensive than other universities despite their reputation, and their masters programs (at least in the tech labs like the Media Lab) are completely subsidized for their students. Students who get their courses of study approved and are accepted to the tech labs are not only given free tuition, they're actually given a stipend to support themselves on. Combine that with the tremendous amount of technology MIT has given back to the world, and I think you have a good case for their being a legitimate charitable organization... That said, the people at MY university were a bunch of tightfisted dickheads, and I thoroughly agree with you in general.
11. Re:Midrange by bigstrat2003 · 2011-04-30 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  My brother was pondering going there (although he wound up going to Northwestern College instead). I recall my dad saying, after visiting the campus with my brother, that it was in a rough neighborhood. Was it all that bad, in your experience? Just curious.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
12. Re:Midrange by damiam · 2011-04-30 18:16 · Score: 2
  
  Just curious, what school did you go to? My experience from friends at wide range of schools is that there are a lot of mid-tier American schools which do make an effort to squeeze their students dry, but the schools at the very top tend to be wealthy enough (thanks to alumni donations) that they can afford to have very generous financial aid policies. MIT in particular is one of only six American schools that do need-blind admissions for all students and which guarantee to meet full financial need (the others are Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Amherst). That means that no one at MIT looks at how much money you have when they decide whether to admit you, and once you're admitted you're guaranteed whatever financial aid is necessary to allow you to attend based on your family's financial documents. I think MIT's financial aid policies are slightly less generous than, say, Harvard, which is actually free if your family earns under $60k/yr, but that's only because Harvard's endowment is more than three times as large.
  Basically, the argument that schools like MIT make to their alumni is that when you donate to MIT, you're not giving your money to a large faceless entity with a $8 billion endowment staffed with administrators who light their cigars with $100 bills. You're giving it to a poor kid from the slums of Bangalore who is able to come to MIT and fulfill his/her potential because of generous alumni like you, who have allowed MIT to provide a $300k education for free to anyone who can qualify. Obviously you can believe this sort of thing to varying degrees, but apparently Bose's experiences working at MIT for several decades came to convince him that it is, as an institution, overall a force for good in the world.
  
  --
  It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
13. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 18:23 · Score: 0
  
  You must be new here!
14. Re:Midrange by bemymonkey · 2011-04-30 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  I genuinely hope that this is possible. It would be great to have a company like Bose, which has an Apple-like (albeit a bit worse) reputation in the consumer audio world, start producing decent systems - the current pricing structure could definitely support that.
  Just imagine - the tards buying BOSE because it says BOSE on it might actually get some decent sound for their money, and better sound makes the world a better place. Ever been to visit a friend for a few days and realized that you'd be without decent sound (except your headphones, maybe) for weeks because he uses a 4 gagillion Watt (PMPO of course) sound system that sounds like a dying cat as his stereo?
15. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  Its scary when the sales varmint at Best Buy won't even recommend the Bose center.
16. Re:Midrange by HuguesT · 2011-04-30 19:11 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  To get the "message" that they are losing money on every students, Universities pull accounting tricks worthy of Hollywood. They take all of their expenses, including research and administrative related ones on the one hand, they take what students pay on the other, totally ignoring donations, and they say, "eh, student tuition is only one third of our income, therefore student are actually not paying much at all".
  In reality, some studies have shown that top-level college education really costs no more than about $40k per year per student for engineering, about $80k for medicine, and sometimes as lows as $10k for maths or philosophy. Law is also cheap. If students pay $200k over 4 years, they are totally covering that. In most of Europe, students typically pay less than $10k per year, sometimes much less. Oxford and Cambridge charge about $15k per year. They seem to be doing quite well nonetheless. As it was reported here not so long ago, even top-level US-universities pay their professors a relative pittance compared with other professionals with similar qualifications.
  If universities stopped admitting, they would immediately lose 1/3 of their funding, and so would have to let go of a corresponding share of their staff. They would lose their status and soon all of their donations, losing another 1/3, later they would lose all of their network and influence obtained through alumni, professors would not be needed for teaching and soon the place would be an empty, nearly pointless shell. That doesn't sound like being better off financially.
  The morals is that Universities are there for teaching, and students are at the very center of their mission. Research and whatnot is indeed nice, but it is there to attract funding and top-level researcher, ensuring the quality of the teaching because beginner teachers want to join their teams and so work hard to get tenure. A few top-level researchers are also dedicated and excellent teachers, which is very nice from the university point of view, because they get to write the classical textbooks on their field, ensuring more revenues. Students and alumni are not the only teaching-related income universities get. There are many other things to say, but I'll stop.
  However, saying that universities would be better off without students is utter bollocks, to be polite.
17. Re:Midrange by HuguesT · 2011-04-30 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure you will find that the average MIT graduate is not nearly as successful as Bose. Sure, they'll earn money, but I don't see how some of it has to be channelled back to their alma mater. People make their own success and money, college education is only a part of it. College is only 4 years, what about all the 12 years of school before? Don't they deserve any kudos?
18. Re:Midrange by gmhowell · 2011-04-30 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  "No highs, no lows, it must be Bose!"
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
19. Re:Midrange by Xeranar · 2011-04-30 19:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  MIT is a wonderful place. I almost went there in the early 2000s before opting for a local school that was 7th in engineering (my preferred fields). They were far more willing to work with me on the tuition rates than the school I did choose and MIT was 4 times more expensive at the time. Right off the top MIT gave a half-tuition credit to those they sought out (as to those that simply applied) and then there was further reward if you succeeded. MIT is not a private school and operates largely for the good of humanity. Comparing your local college experience to MIT is really unfair. The only places I can think of that compete are places like Cal Poly Tech and a few other Tech schools in the US. Giving the stock to MIT means they'll have a healthy steady source of income that hopefully will enable them to continue to research when politics pressure their research funds. PS: On the subject of tuition the US has relatively high tuition because schools don't get the kind of funding they need from the state and private schools though non-profit in most cases need to have an excess to invest and protect against the future. Non-profit doesn't mean sum-zero, it means there is no dividend to pay out to trustees and they are limited in their total profits. State colleges by comparison are much cheaper and would be free if the state gave the proper kind of funding they deserved.
20. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure you will find that the average MIT graduate is not nearly as successful as Bose.
  
  On the positive side, he probably sounds better.
21. Re:Midrange by mangu · 2011-04-30 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  It is a college that aims to prepare people to do full-time Christian ministry. Since most of these graduates wind up in fields that don't have great earning potential,
  
  Huh? Say again?
22. Re:Midrange by FreakyGreenLeaky · 2011-04-30 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  With a sig like that, I think he's praying for your soul.
23. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  Seems to me that anything is testable. Either it performs the desired function, or it doesn't.
  Which is not to say that your test makes sense.
24. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they'll be able to get BOSE to make equipment that is testable for reviews and has some midrange.
  Saved me the trouble/beat me to it.
  Enjoy.
25. Re:Midrange by Redlazer · 2011-04-30 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  This is a crazy good idea in a lot of ways.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
26. Re:Midrange by donscarletti · 2011-04-30 21:45 · Score: 2
  
  I think someone pursuing missionary work probably has too much of a conscience to get rich on a "ministry business". Like saying that since the mob bosses who control sanitation in some Italian cities are rich, garbage disposal is a good career path.
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
27. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  JBL > Bose
  That is all.
28. Re:Midrange by RobertLTux · 2011-05-01 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think i know your confusion
  there is a difference between full time Christian Ministry and running a Mega-Church.
  In one you spend most of your time actually doing work and in the other you spend most of your time raising funds.
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
29. Re:Midrange by jittles · 2011-05-01 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah my high school sweetheart wanted me to go to Biola with her. I was pretty indifferent about it, so I applied and got in. We broke up not too long after that. I refused to pay $120k for 4 years of education and she got pissed. I went to a state school and walked away spending about $30k after cost of living.
30. Re:Midrange by thermopile · 2011-05-01 00:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I agree completely with HuguesT, above. The notion that universities are "just barely scraping by" is absurd.
  College Tuition has been rising at about twice the rate of inflation over the past ten years. If you look at Harvard's endowment, they could easily pay every student's tuition based on extremely conservative returns on their 26 billion investment.
  Colleges and universities are a racket. Few other industries, as a whole, have experienced the same kind of wholesale constant increase in funds like the education market.
  Well, except for the defense industry, but that's another story.
  To get back on topic, donating voting shares to MIT would have been a very interesting opportunity for students -- they would get to run the company, and learn all about the real-world application of technology. Alas, with dividends only, I'm not sure there's as much education going on as there could have been.
  
  --
  "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound
31. Re:Midrange by sribe · 2011-05-01 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Colleges and universities are a racket. Few other industries, as a whole, have experienced the same kind of wholesale constant increase in funds like the education market.
  You know where those double-digit every-single-year increases are going? Administration, bureaucracy, middle management--not teaching.
  You know when those increases started? The same time that our Federal government decided that a college education had become so important that they needed to start subsidizing students. Is that a coincidence?
  If rabid conservative had their way tomorrow and eliminated Federal college loan & grant programs, what do you think would really be the long-term outcome? Would the proportion of graduating high school students attending college drop to a tenth of what it is today? Or would tuition drop? (Yes, suddenly doing this would be a complete disaster for a few years, because colleges couldn't undo their hugely wasteful habits overnight. And I don't even see any way to do it gradually without it being a disaster for a long time. As far as I can see, we're now stuck with what we've got--inflated tuition caused by gross inefficiency and propped up by Federal subsidy...)
32. Re:Midrange by sribe · 2011-05-01 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  MIT is not a private school and operates largely for the good of humanity.
  Typo, perhaps? Since MIT is most certainly a private school...
33. Re:Midrange by russotto · 2011-05-01 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they'll be able to get BOSE to make equipment that is testable for reviews and has some midrange.
  You just need to put together some old Bose equipment and some new. The new stuff has no midrange, but the old stuff prompted the phrase "There are no highs, there are no lows, it must be Bose".
34. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  A fucking BIBLE COLLEGE? So you decided you really didn't want a job? You chose to be poor your entire life?
35. Re:Midrange by Alex+Belits · 2011-05-01 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  If rabid conservative had their way tomorrow and eliminated Federal college loan & grant programs, what do you think would really be the long-term outcome?
  Universities will get rid of teaching and research, and will reduce themselves to operating their sports teams.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
36. Re:Midrange by Compaqt · 2011-05-01 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  > You're giving it to a poor kid from the slums of Bangalore
  ?
  I thought that universities require full payment from foreign students.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
37. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  No.
  I choose friends based on their sound systems. Don't you?
38. Re:Midrange by sribe · 2011-05-01 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Universities will get rid of teaching and research, and will reduce themselves to operating their sports teams.
  Ha, good one! However the claim that the sports teams bring operating surpluses back to university budgets are based on totally bogus accounting. In reality nearly any university that tried that would go bankrupt shortly ;-)
39. Re:Midrange by Theovon · 2011-05-01 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  The same could be said for people who major in Math, English, Philosophy, and Religion (not the same as Ministry). People choose to go into fields they enjoy or feel compelled by. Not all of them are huge money-makers.
  Of course, you're an Anonymous Coward who is just jeallous that this other person even HAS a job, unlike your basement-dwelling self. This person chose a career path that makes little money. You're unemployed and living with your mom due to sheer irremedial incompetence.
40. Re:Midrange by Alex+Belits · 2011-05-01 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  If that won't work, they would just reduce coaches' salaries by 5%, and they will be fine.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
41. Re:Midrange by Rakishi · 2011-05-01 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  If you look at Harvard's endowment, they could easily pay every student's tuition based on extremely conservative returns on their 26 billion investment.
  
  Congratulations on showing you know nothing about modern college education. Harvard does this already, they provide absurdly good financial aid to the point that no student should be kept from going there due to financial issues. Free ride as long as parents make under $60k I think (or was it $100k now?) and it scales nicely above that.
  Not to mention that the endowment must pay for all the other operating costs which other sources don't pay for.
  And I'm sure if Harvard gave every student a free ride you'd be bitching about why all the millionaires' kids aren't paying tuition to help the less well off who go there. *rolls eyes*
  Then there's the fact that colleges like Harvard are minorities and most colleges don't have giant endowments.
42. Re:Midrange by sribe · 2011-05-01 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  If that won't work, they would just reduce coaches' salaries by 5%, and they will be fine.
  The top athletic programs could probably eliminate coaches salaries and only reduce their incomes by 5%...
43. Re:Midrange by MoonBuggy · 2011-05-01 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  ...they provide absurdly good financial aid to the point that no student should be kept from going there due to financial issues.
  As with the post I was originally replying to, I think your wording says a lot more than you perhaps intended. Basing admissions purely on a candidate's academic ability, rather than wealth, is considered to be the entire basis of the education system in most countries, not an "absurdly good" exception to the rule.
44. Re:Midrange by bigtrike · 2011-05-01 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Moody Bible Institute is in one of the wealthiest areas of Chicago, known as the Gold Coast. There are some beggars in the area due to its proximity to the tourist areas and the cheap housing at the YMCA, but other than that it's a pretty safe area. I could see how it might be considered bad compared to Evanston however, which is quite wealthy and sterile. In both areas the biggest risk to your health at night is drunk middle class people.
45. Re:Midrange by Rakishi · 2011-05-01 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Your point being what exactly? Are you somehow assuming that I don't agree with your view simply because I don't blindly clap for a badly made argument simply because it supports my position?
  I merely pointed out that the person I was replying to used about the worst example one can for his point. Likely because of some deeply ingrained hatred of Harvard due to his own failures in life. If you're going to make a generally valid argument, don't fuck it up with your own irrational prejudices.
46. Re:Midrange by guyminuslife · 2011-05-01 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  I have to wonder if all of these come from the same loser at home in his mom's basement, or if there's a clandestine network of losers in basements that have forged a tenuous alliance to further their common goal of spreading douchebaggery throughout every corner of the Internet.
  
  --
  I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
47. Re:Midrange by damiam · 2011-05-01 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Some schools might. But as I said, the top tier of American universities are need-blind and guarantee to meet full financial need for all students, domestic and international. One of my best friends from college is from Bangalore, not from the slums but certainly not a rich family, and he paid $0 in tuition for four years at the number-one-ranked undergrad school in the US (Williams College, which has nominal tuition of $50k/yr, but which guarantees to meet full need for all students and is just a couple of technicalities away from being the seventh entry on my list above), so it does happen. And it's not even a rare thing; the majority of my international student friends paid little or no tuition (and of course, neither do many domestic students).
  
  People don't understand that in the top tier of American education, it's not about money. Harvard is swimming in so much money they've actually seriously debated whether they should eliminate tuition entirely and just become free for all applicants; the only reason they haven't done this is that they're already free or very cheap for basically any middle-class family, so the only people who would benefit from such a change are the people who are rich enough to not need it. MIT is not quite that rich, but they're rich enough to offer very generous aid to any international student they admit. And that's exactly what they do, because their reputation as one of the best schools in the world is very much dependent on their having the best students in the world, and that means making sure people can come regardless of their ability to pay.
  
  --
  It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
48. Re:Midrange by dkf · 2011-05-01 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  The morals is that Universities are there for teaching, and students are at the very center of their mission. Research and whatnot is indeed nice, but it is there to attract funding and top-level researcher, ensuring the quality of the teaching because beginner teachers want to join their teams and so work hard to get tenure.
  I'd prefer to say that a university is there for learning. An important part of that is through teaching, but learning doesn't stop with graduation; that's just where it becomes impractical to teach any more and those seeking to learn must find things out for themselves (i.e., do research). All the financial side of a university is just there to support that core goal of allowing people to learn things (and help others to learn them) for their whole lives.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
49. Re:Midrange by __aaxtnf2500 · 2011-05-01 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  And one that contributes/has contributed to the US nuclear weapons complex and other projects that contribute to the national defense of america, which certainly is not for the good of humanity.
50. Re:Midrange by j-beda · 2011-05-01 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding was that it is not true that any of these places are "cheap" for anyone - they just strive to make their take as much as the student can be bled for. If they charge only what the applicant can "afford to pay", and the students or families are left with significant loans needing repayment after the fact than that hardly seems "cheap". OK, I guess for someone like Bill Gates, their sliding price scale doesn't reach up high enough to really make it painful, but if you cannot afford "full price" they are willing to drop the price just enough that you can pay it, but no lower.
  I suppose there is nothing really unethical about setting their tuition price at whatever level they want. The 1991 "price fixing" lawsuit did not make them out to be completely above board though.
  http://www.google.ca/search?q=ivy+league+price+fixing
  One of the interesting things is a study a decade or so ago (find it yourself) that showed that people accepted to one of the "top tier" schools who instead when to pretty much any place else, were as "successful" as those who went to the top tier school. The conclusion was that the top tier graduates were better not because of the school, but rather the school was selecting exceptional people, who on average, would have exceptional outcomes if they went somewhere cheaper too. There are some amazing people and amazing opportunities at "Top Tier U", no doubt. There are also amazing people and opportunities at "Springfield State School" as well - and graduates of good ole SSS spend considerably less money in meeting them. The rational economic argument probably precludes attending TTU over SSS.
  If you look at the various endowments per student level, it does seem a bit strange that a place like Princeton which has almost $2 million dollars for EACH STUDENT in the bank, finds that it needs to charge more than state schools which seem to get only as much as $15k per student support from the state. Surely Princeton is managing to get better than $15k from that $2million? Heck a 1% return is $20k!
  http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=36#
  SUNY Cortland wants something like $5k in tuition, and only expects someone to spend $22k for tuition, fees, room, board, books, etc. Princeton wants $37k for just tuition, and estimates that it will be over $52k for room, board, fees, etc.
  http://www2.cortland.edu/cost-aid/student-accounts-office/tuition-and-costs/
  http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/cost/
  People can spend a lot of time discussing the question of whether or not the extra $30,000 PER YEAR for Princeton is "worth it", but the question in my mind is why does Princeton charge the premium at all? I can see why they can charge it (people think it is worth that much) but what is their reasoning behind setting the particular price that they do? Isn't their non-profit mandate something like "making the world better by educating lots of people real good"? Are they spending that extra 30k (plus whatever their $2million investments are bringing in) on things that they think do that? Are they wasting money on things that don't really help that goal much? Too many middle managers? Too many janitors? Does SUNY just spend its money way more efficiently? Regardless of whether or not Princeton students are getting $30k more value than SUNY students, does Princeton actually spend $30k (plus endowment monies) more on each student when providing them with services?
51. Re:Midrange by Xeranar · 2011-05-01 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  That was a typo on my part. Arguably US nuclear weapons research is a perfectly acceptable route if one subscribes to MAD. Course, the argument with most geeks is that they tend to have an ethical code that comes out of comic books instead of the real world. MIT has done everything to advance society including nuclear weapons designs. The idea is to never have to use them but to be near perfect so that MAD is inevitable.
52. Re:Midrange by Xeranar · 2011-05-01 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  If that was directed at me I went to University of Pittsburgh. One of the most aggressive engineering schools in the country. The place was highly competitive, well funded, and cut-throat to the limit. State-related schools are fairly rare, I know of two in Pennsylvania and a handful more in the US so it's rather unfair to compare them to say Ohio State or Michigan. There tuition back then was practically double the state average and I could have gone to Tier-one state college on out-of-state rates and still been cheaper. But it was in my back yard so it made sense to me at the time. It was a school that did no hand holding, it was do or die, and frankly I burnt out after a while. Ended up getting my PhD in History. I can say with some degree once you get into middle-class schools (Tier one or otherwise) it becomes highly competitive because the funding simply isn't there. At places like Harvard their endowment is so large and their limited enrollment allows them to afford those options. The less well-endowed places tend to scrabble for cash to cover tuition costs. That's why they rely on Alumni so heavily, in many cases the schools are loss-leaders if state-run because they keep tuition affordable but have no massive nest egg to invest with due to various rules and charters. Not that they could develop that kind of nest egg because the same charters force admittance levels too low to select the cream of the crop as those private schools do.
53. Re:Midrange by __aaxtnf2500 · 2011-05-01 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with MAD is that it is predicated on the assumption that if no one conducts a first-strike, no one will have to counter-attack, and therefore there will be no nuclear war.
  History has shown that only due to early warning system operators disobeying their training and exercising judgement that could have ended in trial by court martial and execution was the world saved from a computer error causing a nuclear holocaust which would result in the destruction of the bulk of the world north of the equator.
  Nuclear weapons launch warning systems are fallible and have nearly caused the collapse of our civilization.
  Please let us know if you have professional experience with nuclear weapons command and control or launch systems and therefore could contradict the publicly available information which indicates that these systems are unstable.
54. Re:Midrange by damiam · 2011-05-01 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  I can't speak for Princeton directly, but I think top-tier university finances and top-tier LAC finances are similar enough that my experience at Williams might be relevant. Williams spends about $80k per student per year (roughly a $160M budget divided by 2k students). Nominal tuition is about $50k including room and board, and financial aid discounting means that the average student pays about $30k (some students pay the full $50k, but others pay nothing, and most pay somewhere in between). So the average student is getting about $50k spent on them that they're not paying for; that difference is funded primarily from endowment returns. I think this situation is similar at Harvard/Princeton/MIT - even full-fare students are paying less than the total amount that's being spent on them.
  
  Where does that money go? At Williams it mostly goes towards people: a 7:1 student-faculty ratio and something like a 2.5:1 staff-student ratio. Williams employs 800 staff for 2000 students, which sounds ridiculous and probably is pretty ridiculous, but that includes everything from chefs and dining employees, to secretaries and departmental administrative assistants, to IT support, to mechanics and janitors and groundskeepers, to doctors and nurses and psych counselors and chaplains, to athletic coaches, to campus life coordinators and deans. I'm now in grad school at a much larger and less-well-funded state school (UC Berkeley), and it's amazing to see the contrast between the two institutions. A lot of kids get decent educations at Berkeley, and some do really well. But where at Williams I was taking classes with 20, 10, or even 2 students in them, Berkeley undergrad class sizes are in the hundreds. At Williams I was working on a research project with a prof by the end of my freshman year; at Berkeley most undergrads don't ever get a chance to get involved with research. And so on. You just don't get the same level of personal attention at a large state school (and Berkeley is one of the best large state schools!) as you do at a small private school. That level of attention is expensive to provide.
  
  I've seen the studies about educational outcomes at elite schools before, and I believe them to a certain extent, but you have to be at least a bit careful interpreting their conclusions. I'm pretty sure I would have ended up "successful" by most metrics if I'd gone to a large state school like Berkeley, in the sense that I would have gotten decent grades and graduated and found a decent-paying job somewhere that I would have been happy with. But I probably wouldn't have gotten involved in research and ended up at a top grad school. I probably wouldn't have met nearly as diverse a group of friends from all around the country and around the world. I probably wouldn't have gotten to meet and have lengthy conversations with people like Dan Dennett and Steve Strogatz, and I probably wouldn't have had a whole bunch of other experiences that have made my life richer in ways that are not going to be measured by a few survey questions as to my "success".
  
  You can certainly get a great education at a lot of schools (heck, if you're the right sort of student you can get a great education sitting at home with a textbook), though I dispute that your average "Springfield State School" has anywhere near the same level of amazing people and opportunities as a top-tier university (case in point: I was going to check out the course offerings of the SUNY Cortland computer science department to see how they compared to CS programs I'm familiar with, but it looks like they don't actually have a computer science department, just a minor in "computer applications"). But if you're lucky enough to be able to get into one of the elite schools, there are experiences you'll be able to get there that you just won't have at your average state school. I don't know if supporting elite schools is the best use of my money as a potential alumni donor, because obviously there are a lot of other worthy causes in the world. But I do think th
  
  --
  It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
55. Re:Midrange by damiam · 2011-05-01 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  To respond to the first part of your comment, obviously "what a person can afford to pay" is subjective, and lots of families still don't find their education "cheap" (I have a friend who got roughly $51k of financial aid on a $52k bill, so his family's contribution was only $1k/yr - they still struggled to pay that). But most top schools don't expect students to take out student loans of any form (see this list on wikipedia), and I think most poor / middle-class families will find that their tuition bill at an elite school is smaller than it would be at a good state school; for example Berkeley tuition is $13k/yr for in-state students (not including room and board) and more than double that for out-of-state/international students, while Stanford just down the street has free tuition for any family earning less than $100k/yr. So again, you can argue that elite schools aren't the most needy targets for charitable donations (do we really need to help Stanford extend their free tuition offer up to families earning $150k?), but I don't think it's fair to say that they're actively trying to bleed their students.
  
  --
  It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
56. Re:Midrange by Xeranar · 2011-05-01 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Cite or remove. Honestly I am sure I could have hounded google for hours to find an anti-nuclear site that explains it but I don't really have the time or energy. I didn't particularly try to make a strong academic point, just a generic stand. So since you made an explicit argument cite it or retract your stand. I'm willing to be wrong, I'm glad to learn but otherwise I would argue you're attempting to strawman me because I advocated that the nuclear launch system work they did was moral because the better the system the better we are at keeping MAD in-check. You're arguing a flaw in the system's coding and not the system itself. So please cite your argument against me.
57. Re:Midrange by __aaxtnf2500 · 2011-05-01 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Are you rational? MAD is not a theory, it is a doctrine, it is the state of your world. The United States and Russia have several thousand thermonuclear weapons they are ready to annhiliate each other with at a moment's notice. A flaw in the engineering of any component in this system is a flaw in the system. It's a system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
  What you don't have is a basic understanding of the functioning of the United States or Russia's strategic warning, communications, command and control, and delivery systems.
  Here is a pretty clear reason why MAD is unreasonable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
  Here is a list of military research by MIT which includes projects which destabilize the MAD model by introducing the possibility of delivery system defeat: http://web.mit.edu/pugwash/www/milres.html
  You did not say it was moral, you said it was for the benefit of humanity.
58. Re:Midrange by fallungus · 2011-05-02 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Sports.
  
  --
  You call this a sig?
59. Re:Midrange by CtownNighrider · 2011-05-02 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if you're from NY or not but I am so I'll say that SUNY is the NY state school system, as in subsidized by the state. I'm not sure exactly how the funding works because I'm not applying to any of them (high school junior, probably going to RPI, although MIT is my longshot school, for aerospace engineering) but they are run by the sate.
60. Re:Midrange by j-beda · 2011-05-02 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Naw, I'm not in NY - they just happened to have figures I could find. It looks like NY gives about $15k to the state schools per student if I am reading this type of information correctly:
  http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=36#
61. Re:Midrange by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  Unlike most people, I'm not hard of hearing, so midrange audio usually hurts my ears.
Misleading headline by Josh+Triplett · 2011-04-30 15:25 · Score: 4, Informative

The headline makes this story sound more sensational than the reality. MIT doesn't get any control over the company, just a pile of dividend-bearing stock.
1. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:27 · Score: 0
  
  Just? That could end up being a big pile of cash...
2. Re:Misleading headline by Bios_Hakr · 2011-04-30 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't being a stock-holder also mean some control over the company?
  
  --
  I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
3. Re:Misleading headline by samwichse · 2011-04-30 15:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voting_stock
4. Re:Misleading headline by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2011-04-30 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  According to other articles... MIT actually does get ownership. BOSE himself will still control the company's direction but MIT owns the majority of the stock but not enough to sell the company apparently.
5. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  here's the news article from MIT's website.
  http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/bose-gift.html
  MIT get majority ownership with no control.
6. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  Not unreasonable. If I built a spaceship from scratch and was near the end of my life I'd happily let some smart people ride along as long as I still get to drive it.
7. Re:Misleading headline by omz13 · 2011-04-30 18:01 · Score: 2
  
  MIT get a donation of non-voting shares and they can live off dividends (if there are any). They are not allowed to sell them. They don't get control of BOSE, they don't get any say in how its run.
8. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Since it is Unlisted as Bose wanted to Plough back all the funds into R&D. Good for MIT Researchers who can collaborate with Bose Engineers and Vice Versa. Their are no Fucking Wall Street Analysts to screw the company, Fantastic move I should say.
9. Re:Misleading headline by Alex+Belits · 2011-05-01 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or it can end up being nothing. It's up to Bose to decide if the company is going to pay any dividends at all.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
10. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Actually MIT will not be allowed to sell the shares either from what I read. That doesn't detract from what Mr. Bose has done, but it is essentially a perpetual annual donation to MIT based on the earnings of Bose.
11. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 20:35 · Score: 0
  
  "The headline makes this story sound more sensational than the reality. "
  It would do, but that's Bose audio for ya :)
Christ, that was an enormous shit! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:26 · Score: -1

It felt like a giant pinecone.
1. Re:Christ, that was an enormous shit! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 18:49 · Score: -1
  
  And sounded like a Bose.......
A sound decision indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:28 · Score: 2, Funny

I also wish MIT could open-source the designs and IPs of Bose for
the greater good of the audio world.
1. Re:A sound decision indeed by larry+bagina · 2011-04-30 15:37 · Score: 2
  
  Good idea. It will tell everybody what not to do.
  No highs, no lows, Bose.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
2. Re:A sound decision indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  I also wish MIT could aggressively defend the designs and IPs of Bose for the greater good of the audio world.
  Fixed that for you.
3. Re:A sound decision indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 18:36 · Score: 0
  
  Bose has destroyed much of the audio world through aggressive defense of frivolous patents acquired on the most basic elements of speaker design. Sure, there is plenty of prior art to overturn those patents - if you can afford the challenge. For the small entrepreneur, while it is quite easy to design a speaker that sounds better than a Bose, it is virtually impossible to manufacture any loudspeaker without infringing a Bose patent.
M.I.T. already has an $8 billion endowment. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:32 · Score: 0

Why not give it to a school or schools that actually need the money?
1. Re:M.I.T. already has an $8 billion endowment. by Facekhan · 2011-04-30 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  I am inclined to agree with that. There are a lot of great universities out there. MIT and Harvard are among the ones with enormous endowments that still get hundreds of millions in donor cash that could probably be put to better use at schools with less name recognition.
2. Re:M.I.T. already has an $8 billion endowment. by Sulphur · 2011-04-30 15:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why not give it to a school or schools that actually deserve the money?
  FTFY
3. Re:M.I.T. already has an $8 billion endowment. by Outtascope · 2011-04-30 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  Accepting the declaration that MIT doesn't "need the money" because of their endowment, I would say that the reason is that he is not an alumnus nor a professor emeritus of a school that "needs the money". I would argue, however, that there isn't a school out there that doesn't "need the money". Every school, now matter how wealthy or how prestigious has talented students in need that fall outside the range to which they can offer scholarships, or has exciting but risky research projects that do not get undertaken due to funds. I can't begrudge a guy for an act of altruism just because the beneficiary of that act is not as needy as my own school is. Besides that, MIT does as much if not more than any school I can think of to "give back". Dr. Bose and MIT, Thank You.
4. Re:M.I.T. already has an $8 billion endowment. by ChrisMaple · 2011-04-30 18:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Bose has a long relationship with MIT. For many years he competently taught a class on acoustics, using Leo Beranek's text.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
5. Re:M.I.T. already has an $8 billion endowment. by AHuxley · 2011-04-30 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  Schools that actually need the money dont produce the type of students the US actually needs.
  Scholarships and testing helps stream out the useful and gifted.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
6. Re:M.I.T. already has an $8 billion endowment. by 19061969 · 2011-04-30 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  So that his descendants will find it easy to be accepted by MIT in the future? Just guessing...
  
  --
  bang goes my karma... again...
7. Re:M.I.T. already has an $8 billion endowment. by sribe · 2011-05-01 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  So that his descendants will find it easy to be accepted by MIT in the future? Just guessing...
  Nope. MIT doesn't work that way and he knows it ;-)
Caltech by RockoTDF · 2011-04-30 15:37 · Score: 2

Something tells me that using Bose equipment is going to be taboo at caltech in the coming years.

--
There is more to science than physics!

www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
1. Re:Caltech by Surt · 2011-04-30 15:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No one at Caltech has to use Bose, they can build their own that are better. It's really just MIT that gets an improvement from upgrading to Bose.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
2. Re:Caltech by mattventura · 2011-04-30 16:03 · Score: 0
  
  upgrading to Bose
  Is that like "upgrading" to vista?
3. Re:Caltech by siddesu · 2011-04-30 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe someone can give them a bunch of Monster Cable stock, and they can get even?
4. Re:Caltech by FleaPlus · 2011-04-30 16:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No one at Caltech has to use Bose, they can build their own that are better.
  
  Curiously enough, there used to be a Caltech project class based on pretty much exactly that, although it's unfortunately no longer offered:
  http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/
  As a bit of trivia, Caltech alum Bill Gross actually ended up founding GNP Audio based on an engineering project he did as a student. He later went on to co-found, like, a gajillion other companies.
5. Re:Caltech by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  A man settles into his first class cabin seat with and dons his new Bose noise cancellation headphones. Five minutes into the first movement of a Beethoven string quartet, the sound of someone loudly eating potato chips intrudes... not from one his fellow airplane passengers, but apparently from the audio stream itself. Then:
  "So. You must have bought these expensive headphones expecting a truly superior audio experience." More munching sounds. "But that would only be possible if the company behind them hired first rate engineers, not muckers from a place like MIT."
6. Re:Caltech by dtdmrr · 2011-04-30 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  This changes nothing. Bose has been biased towards Masstech for decades. He was a prof there, and the company offered discounts to the students.
7. Re:Caltech by ChrisMaple · 2011-04-30 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  So you're confirming my experience when I visited Cal Tech, that their students are rude.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
8. Re:Caltech by cwebster · 2011-04-30 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  Imho, active noise canceling is one thing Bose is actually good at. I've used their QC-2, QC-15 and X aviation headset, as well as active sets from Sennheiser, Lightspeeed and David Clark. I prefer the QC-15 for personal use and the lightspeed in the airplane (though I hear the new bose aviation headset is even better, I have not been able to try one yet).
9. Re:Caltech by Threni · 2011-05-01 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  No highs. No lows. It's Bose.
And the link? by TubeSteak · 2011-04-30 15:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Is it just me, or did Timothy manage to strip out TFA between the firehose and the front page?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/29/technology/bose_mit_donation/index.htm

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Nice, but not so nice by dachshund · 2011-04-30 15:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

MIT has done wonderful things for the world. As have many academic institutions. But this is as good a time as any to note that making large donations to an elite academic institution is a pretty ineffective way to use your money.
MIT is already well funded, and while this money may go to fund additional research, it may also just lead to a lot of pretty buildings going up. If you have the opportunity to donate, why not donate to a school that will use the money to dramatically increase the number of students it educates, or to a charity that sees the money directed into existing research initiatives that need it.
I'm sure the new Bose facilities will be very nice and the Bose family will have no problem getting into MIT for the next few generations. Nonetheless, it seems like a bit of a waste.
1. Re:Nice, but not so nice by Vectronic · 2011-04-30 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Amar Bose[quote]Bose enrolled at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, graduating with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering in the early 1950s.[/quote]
2. Re:Nice, but not so nice by Vectronic · 2011-04-30 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  yeah shut up... lol
3. Re:Nice, but not so nice by mcl630 · 2011-04-30 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  Multiple personalities?
4. Re:Nice, but not so nice by Vectronic · 2011-04-30 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  I've been trying to get a consensus, that but I never agree.
  It was in regard to the improper [quote] tags, preempt the inevitable.
5. Re:Nice, but not so nice by TheRaven64 · 2011-04-30 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  MIT is already well funded, and while this money may go to fund additional research, it may also just lead to a lot of pretty buildings going up.
  Note that he's donated it in such a way that they get dividends, but can't sell the stock. The dividends are unlikely to be large enough to fund pretty new buildings, but may be enough to fund a few scholarships.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
6. Re:Nice, but not so nice by Alomex · 2011-04-30 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  . If you have the opportunity to donate, why not donate to a school that will use the money to dramatically increase the number of students it educates, or to a charity that sees the money directed into existing research initiatives that need it.
  All schools get donations but MIT has done a lot better than the rest. This suggests that MIT is better at allocating money than other mediocre schools. So from a perfectly rational perspective giving money to the most effective organization makes a lot of sense.
7. Re:Nice, but not so nice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  What do you think happens in these "pretty buildings"? Research. Aside from that, the university funds a lot of internal grants, also furthering research. The most basic concept of capitalism is to reward someone for doing well. MIT clearly is and therefore should be supported further.
8. Re:Nice, but not so nice by dachshund · 2011-05-01 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  But do MIT students represent the best candidate for scholarships? My understanding is that the undergraduate population there is already pretty well taken care of in terms of need. By the time you have the credentials to get into MIT, you're either impressive enough to get a scholarship (from someone) or you're going to take loans --- knowing that in the final analysis, an engineering career driven by an MIT degree makes them a good risk.
  What worries me is all the talented kids who don't make it to such a lucky position, either because they go to terrible high schools, have no access to critical resources in early childhood, or live in developing countries with no access to resources like MIT.
  Whether you think those people are more deserving is really a subjective issue. But objectively, you can't argue that a dollar spent in those areas will go a hell of a lot farther than a dollar spent at a wealthy, expensive, high profile engineering school.
  This kind of donation is great, but it's also about vanity and legacy, not doing the most good with your buck.
9. Re:Nice, but not so nice by Bozdune · 2011-05-01 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently you do not understand that MIT admissions have always been entirely merit-based. Prior attendance of some relative or parent, or donations from some rich relative, have no relevance whatsoever to the admissions process. In fact, the application, interview, test scores, high school rank (used to bias standardized test scores higher if you are coming from a lousy school district, or lower if you are from some richy-rich suburb where you get a practice SAT for homework every night) are entered into a gigantic linear equation. Out comes a list of candidates divided into three categories: accept, wait list, reject.
  That's the process. No favoritism.
10. Re:Nice, but not so nice by j-beda · 2011-05-01 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  All schools get donations but MIT has done a lot better than the rest. This suggests that MIT is better at allocating money than other mediocre schools. So from a perfectly rational perspective giving money to the most effective organization makes a lot of sense.
  Actually, it suggests that MIT is better at fundraising than "other mediocre schools". Granted, it might be easier to raise funds if you allocate your money "better", but it does not seem completely obvious to me that the original poster's goal was to give money to institution with the most effective fundraising organization. I suspect they were hoping to have the largest positive benefit to the largest number of individuals - probably in the educational field. If that is the case, university education is probably not the most effective use of resources. With a national high school graduation rate of something like 70% - probably the best thing to do is to try to address the front end of the educational pipe with elementary and secondary school initiatives.
  http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23
  But what do I know?
11. Re:Nice, but not so nice by dachshund · 2011-05-01 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  It suggests that MIT has established itself as the top engineering school in the world, and consequently gets the best engineering applicants in the world. I hear it's also a decent education.
a task for MIT by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:48 · Score: 0

Maybe MIT can do something to make them sound good.
Here's to hoping .... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:50 · Score: -1

that maybe we can put this money to good use. Like funding *American* (not just foreign) PhD students. And, *gasp*, perhaps even a white male or two!
1. Re:Here's to hoping .... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  Bose isn't exactly a WASPy name. Fat chance of that happening.
2. Re:Here's to hoping .... by RockoTDF · 2011-04-30 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree with the funding Americans sentiment, I still think think academia and graduate schools are pretty full of white males when you take said foreigners out of the picture.
  
  --
  There is more to science than physics!
  
  www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
3. Re:Here's to hoping .... by secretcurse · 2011-04-30 16:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm a white male starting my PhD in the fall and I'm getting more money from the state of Arkansas than a foreigner would because I'm an Arkansas resident. I also had my undergrad degree fully funded by a state scholarship (to the tune of around $80,000). My university is practically begging locals to pursue a PhD. My foreign colleagues generally have to pay full retail and don't get the federally backed student loans my wife is relying on for her AuD. By the time I finish my PhD, it's looking like my state will have paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 to educate me. I'm thankful for that and plan on living in Little Rock for the rest of my life so my taxes can help future students.
  
  --
  I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
4. Re:Here's to hoping .... by scotch · 2011-04-30 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  Have you married your sister yet?
  
  --
  XML causes global warming.
5. Re:Here's to hoping .... by TheRaven64 · 2011-04-30 22:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I think you'll find that most American universities do primarily fund American students. I did my PhD in a UK university, but I spent three months in a US university on a collaboration, and from what people said it seems like the funding situation is pretty similar, although not quite the same:
  In the UK, the university charges tuition fees for PhD students. These have two rates, one for EU citizens (government subsidised) and one for everyone else (full price). This covers lab space, lecturer time, and so on - the university skims about 50% off before it gets to the department, to cover general university overheads. Most PhD student places for EU citizens come with a grant, either from a government grant, an industrial partnership, a charitable trust, or the university itself. This covers all of the tuition fees, travel expenses, and provides a stipend (tax free income). I don't even know exactly what my tuition fees were - they were paid from the grant and I never saw the bill - while my colleagues from Malaysia (for example) were having to pay a huge amount every year. I was paid a stipend which worked out to about the same as an entry level graduate salary after tax, and claimed around £10K or so in travel expenses, while they had to pay for everything.
  One of the reasons why the tuition fees were so high for foreign students was that this money was used to subsidise other PhD places. For every 2-3 non-EU students we got, the university could afford to fund another PhD. This is why you see so many foreign students - the UK and USA are both regarded as prestigious places to do a PhD in much of Asia, so our universities encourage them to apply. Once they're here, the universities charge them a lot and use this to subsidise everyone else. Send them all back home, and you'll see a lot fewer PhD places available for locals.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
6. Re:Here's to hoping .... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  "In 1966, U.S.-born white males received 71 percent of science and engineering PhDs, U.S.-born females earned 6 percent of those degrees, and foreign-born students received 23 percent of those doctorates. By the year 2000, U.S.-born white males received just 35 percent of science and engineering PhDs, while 25 percent of those doctorates were awarded to females and 39 percent to foreign-born students. "
  There are more foreign born students receiving PhDs than there are white males. If you're a white male, you're the last known demographic for which racism and discrimination against is encouraged, and you are less likely to get a PhD than your female and foreign counterparts. If you're one of the few who believe that funding options for a white male even closely resemble or compare well against the options for virtually anyone else, you're in the minority (ironic, huh?).
  http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10554.html
Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:52 · Score: 2, Informative

These are non-voting, unsellable shares.
MIT only gets the dividends.
1. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Nasty old Mr. Bose is up to his old tricks, then.
  To Joe Sixpack, he sells equipment that sounds like it sounds good, though to the trained ear, it's clear it doesn't really sound good, no matter what it sounds like.
  To Joe MIT, he donates shares in a way that seems like a gift of a company to a university, though to the trained banker, it's clear they're non-voting, non-sellable shares, and are only good for getting free money.
  What a no-good scammer!
2. Re:Unlikely by Yvanhoe · 2011-05-01 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the number of parts were undisclosed so it may be just a very small part.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
3. Re:Unlikely by jvkjvk · 2011-05-01 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  it's clear they're non-voting, non-sellable shares, and are only good for getting free money.
  Yeah, I would hate to have someone scam me by giving me free money! That bastard!
  Regards
4. Re:Unlikely by forrie · 2011-05-01 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that figures. So we can still look forward to overpriced items from Bose.
5. Re:Unlikely by dzfoo · 2011-05-01 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or a sound system that sounds good to me even if technically it's goodness is an illusion.
  
  --
  Carol vs. Ghost
  ...Can you save Christmas?
6. Re:Unlikely by SETIGuy · 2011-05-01 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  To Joe MIT, he donates shares in a way that seems like a gift of a company to a university, though to the trained banker, it's clear they're non-voting, non-sellable shares, and are only good for getting free money.
  And as such, they're probably the first to disappear in a bankruptcy. I assume that he or his estate will get the tax write-off even though the conversion of voting to unmarketable non-voting shares does represent putting pretty severe conditions on the gift.
  
  --
  Support SETI@home
Bose quality by FTL · 2011-04-30 15:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

True story: An elderly gentleman walked into an electronics store in Toronto looking to buy speakers. The salesman showed him a couple of different models. The customer pointed at another set on the shelves and asked about them. The salesman said "Oh, those are Bose, they're crap." The customer was Amar Bose.

--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
1. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  So, what did the old customer buy?
2. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:12 · Score: 0
  
  hey a salesman telling the truth.. not bad. bose might (I say MIGHT) have been decent in the 1970s..today they're hopelessly outdated.
3. Re:Bose quality by mianne · 2011-04-30 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Always heard BOSE as an acronym for "Buy Other Stereo Equipment."
  
  --
  Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
4. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  You can tell this story is fake because there is not a single salesperson at a single big box electronics store that would ever try to talk someone out of buying Bose.
5. Re:Bose quality by digitallife · 2011-04-30 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  I was in future shop and they did exactly that to me. I walked out.
  Everyone is bad mouthing Bose, but they have damn good sound at a mid range price. All my friends love my little Bose system in my kitchen.
6. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  This is either a brilliant joke or very depressing.
7. Re:Bose quality by Swarley · 2011-04-30 16:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  While the bumper sticker Bose trashing you've been hearing here is pretty much accurate, if you read serious reviews you'll find that the universal gripe with Bose isn't really their sound but their value. They don't sound bad so much as they sound just as good as equipment costing a third as much money, and they sound considerably worse than almost anything else you could buy at the same inflated price. So you're suggestion that they sound damn good at a mid range price seems like you haven't done much comparison listening. You basically hit a bullseye on Bose greatest weakness as a product and called it a strength. Spend 5 minutes with Google "best speakers for $X" where X is what you spent on those over priced Bose speakers and you'll find a giant pile of simultaneously better and cheaper equipment. Take the $350 you spent on pretty much anything Bose and get some Audioengine A5's instead.
8. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:59 · Score: -1
  
  No, audiophiles are depressing. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's shown (in three separate studies) that audiophiles all suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder, addictive personalities, empty lives with nothing worthwhile to spend their money on. That OCD-AP-EL trifecta will become the diagnostic hallmark of the subtype of saddo known as 'audiophile'.
  Go buy your one-way gold-plated ethernet cables and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy our moderately-priced, brand-name shit.
9. Re:Bose quality by Swarley · 2011-04-30 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I cringe at Best Buy listening to sales people push monster cables, Dr. Dre Beats headphones, Bose speakers, apple branded versions of non proprietary equipment (like audio extension cables or AC to USB adapters), and pretty much anything made by Sony since 1995.
10. Re:Bose quality by Swarley · 2011-04-30 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's the whole point! Pretty much any similarly priced "brand name shit" is better than Bose. Audiophiles are people with more money than sense. But you don't have to be an audio snob to see that you can buy some serious gear with the $400 you spent on Bose equipment which sounds no better than $100 gear. The point is that Bose IS expensive gear, you just aren't getting any quality for it. You don't have to drop 10k to beat Bose in quality, pretty much anything costing more than $100 will do that. If you think suggesting people skip Bose and spend the SAME amount on dramatically better gear makes one a stupid over-fed audiophile, then you deserve your shitty speakers.
11. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 17:38 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah...they're just a folded horn speaker enclosure fer crying out loud. You can get the same sound with a couple of cheap 3'" speakers and a few feet of drain pipe. But I guess there are people that like sounds that seem to reverb through a tunnel.
12. Re:Bose quality by Brett+Buck · 2011-04-30 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  No they don't, they are garbage from top to bottom, the one exception being the noise-cancelling headphones, which work quite a bit better than their competitors.
  If you are talking about a Bose Wave, go get a Tivoli Model one, eats the way ALIVE.
13. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  it might be alright, but you definitely overpaid for it.
14. Re:Bose quality by epyT-R · 2011-04-30 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  bose is moderately priced? no bose is insanely overpriced. they are the apple of the audiophile world.
15. Re:Bose quality by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-04-30 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  So, what did the old customer buy?
  Probably the store.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
16. Re:Bose quality by Hognoxious · 2011-04-30 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  there is not a single salesperson at a single big box electronics store that would ever try to talk someone out of buying Bose.
  Well, I doubt they'd do it twice...
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
17. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 21:19 · Score: 0
  
  While I would agree on the 'Buy Bose Speakers' bit, as far as well packaged systems even the elderly can use, Bose has it covered. And honestly the elderly could care less if they can get better bang for their buck. They just want it to work, meet their requirements, and they're happy. Assuming they have average to above average savings (pre-baby boomer, G/L now.) they're also likely to be somewhat indifferent about price as long as they don't come out feeling like they got screwed.
18. Re:Bose quality by thegarbz · 2011-04-30 21:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Everyone is bad mouthing Bose, but they have damn good sound at a mid range price. All my friends love my little Bose system in my kitchen.
  May I suggest you actually go and do a bit of listening, not to opinions but actual system. The problem your statement is that they don't even remotely make damn good sound. Their high end system has no midrange, destroys soundstaging, and sounds like the retarded echo effects mimicking stadiums or cinemas that you can enable in Realtek Audio Manager on pretty much every computer.
  Bose is aesthetically pleasing, but way overpriced garbage in terms of any real sound quality. (not being able to make a duff duff sound from a small system does not a high quality system make), and I far prefer the look and sound of the Tivoli Model One in my dining room and have change left over :-)
  *** This post contains personal opinion.
19. Re:Bose quality by the+eric+conspiracy · 2011-05-01 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Bose is way overpriced for what you get. They are a lifestyle product with a really huge marketing budget. There are many competitors who do a better job.
  BOSE = Buy Other Sound Equipment.
  If you want to hear good sound go to an audio dealer who carries Revel.
20. Re:Bose quality by DrKnark · 2011-05-01 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Audiophiles are people with more money than sense.
  Depends on your priorities. Spending $1-2k on something that you get hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of is not lack of sense in my opinion. You don't have to spend all your money on audio gear to be an audiophile.
  
  Yes, I am a bit of an audiophile. I have however gotten all my stuff by constantly being on the lookout for great deals on used quality gear. Does that mean I have more money than sense?
21. Re:Bose quality by Weedhopper · 2011-05-01 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with Bose is you're getting decent low range sound at a mid range price.
  
  If Bose would knock off 30% off it's MSRP, then maybe you could reasonably say that Bose speakers provide good sound/price bang for buck, especially in comparison to manufacturers of mid-high end audio equipment.
22. Re:Bose quality by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  What? Their stuff is all at least $100 more than equivalent sounding gear from other companies, often more.
23. Re:Bose quality by Swarley · 2011-05-01 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  But then I wouldn't consider you an audiophile. Perhaps it's my own personal definition of the word. In my opinion you are an audio enthusiast, or someone who appreciates music and audio for it's own sake. I consider an audiophile to be somebody who appreciates expensive things because they are expensive. I'm talking about people who shell out for anti-vibration cable supports, $1,500 cables that fail a double blind listening test to coat hangers or plain unshielded copper wire. Point is you can appreciate your sound quality enough to spend good money on it, or you can appreciate the idea that spending big money on snake oil makes you feel superior to regular people. The term audiophile is so abused by the latter that I consider it an insult to people like you and me in the former group. Just look over the internet at audio equipment review sites and magazines, you'll find more often than not that those with audiophile in their name are full of shit and those without it are more likely to be objective about sound and passionate about quality in a realistic way.
24. Re:Bose quality by DrKnark · 2011-05-02 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Allright, I see your point. But maybe those of us who do know the difference should stop using audiophile in a negative context :)
25. Re:Bose quality by Quirkz · 2011-05-02 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  I bought a set of Bose computer speakers for less than $100. So unless someone out there is paying me to take their computer speakers, that statement isn't entirely true.
  I accept that I probably overpaid for the speakers, but I've been pretty happy with them (not a real audiophile, just a guy who likes to listen to music while messing around on the computer) -- they've sounded fine to me and they've lasted 10 years
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
I assume it's a donation to the business school by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 15:56 · Score: 0

Because Bose is just a marketing company that long ago abandoned any actual sonic engineering.
Far better than donating it to... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:05 · Score: 0

Far better than donating it to a church or other anti-intellectual organization. Just saying.
1. Re:Far better than donating it to... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  Far better than donating it to a church or other anti-intellectual organization. Just saying.
  Perhaps if you were a little more intellectual you would be aware that churches are not necessarily anti-intellectual.
  http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=38&Itemid=145
2. Re:Far better than donating it to... by Squiddie · 2011-04-30 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Misleading people and promoting dogma of any kind is anti-intellectual. Didn't the Cathys have a bunch of paedophiles in their service?
3. Re:Far better than donating it to... by MoonBuggy · 2011-04-30 16:32 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Religious organisations almost invariably promote dogma over observable evidence - since you chose to bring up the Vatican as an example, perhaps you'd care to explain how their anti-condom policy, the history of misinformation surrounding it, and the increased incidence of AIDS for which it is partially responsible, is intellectually justifiable?
4. Re:Far better than donating it to... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  Religious organisations almost invariably promote dogma over observable evidence - since you chose to bring up the Vatican as an example, perhaps you'd care to explain how their anti-condom policy, the history of misinformation surrounding it, and the increased incidence of AIDS for which it is partially responsible, is intellectually justifiable?
  Re-read the parent. The vatican observatory was used as an example of churches engaging in genuine intellectual activities. Assuming of course you consider the origin of the universe (the big bang theory was developed by a catholic priest), planetary sciences, stellar and extragalactic astronomy, and cosmology intellectual activities; of course that may be too much to expect from a /. flamebaiter.
  http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=38&Itemid=145
5. Re:Far better than donating it to... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Religious organisations almost invariably promote dogma over observable evidence ...
  Your argument fails quite trivially. While I am personally not a fan of abstinence the observable evidence is that the use of abstinence is more effective than the use of condoms, condoms can break. Failure to use either method is addressed later.
  
  ... since you chose to bring up the Vatican as an example, perhaps you'd care to explain how their anti-condom policy, the history of misinformation surrounding it, and the increased incidence of AIDS for which it is partially responsible, is intellectually justifiable?
  Well one intellectual argument would be that their recommendation of abstinence is more effective than condoms. Now if you want to leave the intellectual realm and be more practical you certainly can argue that abstinence won't be popular, and I would agree so, but then again condoms don't seem very popular in regions plagued by AIDS either. Both abstinence and condoms are rejected by many in these regions of the world. Practicality aside, abstinence remains an intellectually more effective solution.
6. Re:Far better than donating it to... by MysteriousPreacher · 2011-05-01 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well one intellectual argument would be that their recommendation of abstinence is more effective than condoms. Now if you want to leave the intellectual realm and be more practical you certainly can argue that abstinence won't be popular, and I would agree so, but then again condoms don't seem very popular in regions plagued by AIDS either. Both abstinence and condoms are rejected by many in these regions of the world. Practicality aside, abstinence remains an intellectually more effective solution..
  All of you've done here is to assert that abstinence is the intellectually more effective solution if one ignores the obvious practical issues in implementing it. You didn't explain how abstinence being a more effective option would justify the lies Catholics have told about condoms? It would seem more effective to apply both strategies, as people who fail at abstinence can at least get some measure of protection via condoms.
  The Pope is a murderous bastard, and all Catholics are complicit in his dogma-driven death-wish for Africans.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
7. Re:Far better than donating it to... by Rakishi · 2011-05-01 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Now if you want to leave the intellectual realm
  
  And people can fail to use abstinence as well which is equivalent to a condom breaking. You are creating a non-existent and unjustifiable distinction.
  Intellectually condoms are also 100% effective because they can never break and no on ever uses them wrong. A condom breaking is a practical consideration of the material and person using them. By your own views that has no place in an intellectual consideration.
  
  Well one intellectual argument would be that their recommendation of abstinence is more effective than condoms.
  Effectiveness includes how well something works and how often people are able to make it work. Condoms, for example, fail most often because people don't use them right. Data has so far shown that abstinence is useless since even in the US since people don't follow it.
  
  then again condoms don't seem very popular in regions plagued by AIDS either
  Amazing what having all the local Christian priests saying they're evil, don't work and cause AIDS for a few decades can do.
8. Re:Far better than donating it to... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Religious organisations almost invariably promote dogma over observable evidence ...
  Your argument fails quite trivially. While I am personally not a fan of abstinence the observable evidence is that the use of abstinence is more effective than the use of condoms, condoms can break. Failure to use either method is addressed later.
  
  Well one intellectual argument would be that their recommendation of abstinence is more effective than condoms. Now if you want to leave the intellectual realm and be more practical you certainly can argue that abstinence won't be popular, and I would agree so, but then again condoms don't seem very popular in regions plagued by AIDS either. Both abstinence and condoms are rejected by many in these regions of the world. Practicality aside, abstinence remains an intellectually more effective solution..
  All of you've done here is to assert that abstinence is the intellectually more effective solution if one ignores the obvious practical issues in implementing it. You didn't explain how abstinence being a more effective option would justify the lies Catholics have told about condoms? It would seem more effective to apply both strategies, as people who fail at abstinence can at least get some measure of protection via condoms.
  The Pope is a murderous bastard, and all Catholics are complicit in his dogma-driven death-wish for Africans.
  Arguing that people fail at abstinence does not really undercut the unpleasant fact that it is more effective. People also fail to use condoms, is that reflected in the statistics that condoms are 99.x% effective?
  In any case your own dogmatic intolerant anti-intllectual view of the world has been brought to the surface, mission accomplished. Have a nice day. :-)
9. Re:Far better than donating it to... by MysteriousPreacher · 2011-05-01 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Good stuff! Want a third attempt at answering the question?
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
10. Re:Far better than donating it to... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Now if you want to leave the intellectual realm
  And people can fail to use abstinence as well which is equivalent to a condom breaking. ...
  No, you are mistaken. The equivalent to failing to use abstinence is failing to use a condom. The breaking of a condom is a unique risk when one chooses to use one.
  
  ... You are creating a non-existent and unjustifiable distinction. Intellectually condoms are also 100% effective because they can never break and no on ever uses them wrong. A condom breaking is a practical consideration of the material and person using them. By your own views that has no place in an intellectual consideration.
  I'm sorry but you are the one trying to twist logic. The simple truth is that the use of abstinence is in fact 100% effective while the use of condoms is in fact 99.x% effective. Hence the intellectual justification for the promotion of abstinence. Again, abstinence is not my choice, but to say that those who promote it have no intellectual justification (more below) demonstrates a dogmatic biased perspective, a person that is not so far removed from what they criticize.
  
  Well one intellectual argument would be that their recommendation of abstinence is more effective than condoms.
  Effectiveness includes how well something works and how often people are able to make it work ...
  That is a unique and gratuitous redefinition of effectiveness. Face the facts, effectiveness is defined in product labeling, medical reports, etc as successful use compared to all *actual* use. What you are grasping for is a practical solution. I'm all for practical solutions. However the original poster asked for an intellectual argument not a practical one, and ivory tower intellectual arguments do not have to be practical. Now if someone wants to argue that churches are anti-practical I have no complaint. I only disagree with the original poster's assertion that all churches are inherently anti-intellectual, hence my vatican observatory reference. A strong enough point that the original poster felt compelled to offer the condom straw man and botched that attempt.
Billionaire deaths by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:14 · Score: 1

To any billionaires out there that don't know what to do with their money: set up a foundation, buy a record label, and release (as far as contractually possible) the entire catalog under creative commons, the rest under $0.01/song downloads. That'll give you some legacy! Bose will be forgotten in a week.
1. Re:Billionaire deaths by Paradise+Pete · 2011-04-30 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  buy a record label, and release (as far as contractually possible) the entire catalog under creative commons, the rest under $0.01/song downloads.
  Who pays the songwriting and performance royalties? How do you calculate the amount? I think the way to really disrupt the recording industry would be to sell songs directly for ten or fifteen cents. That would enormously reduce pirating and help to topple the current out-dated structure.
  There's nothing that defeats piracy like reasonable pricing. Nothing even comes close.
Mutually exclusive by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:19 · Score: 1

So far I've read:

No highs, no lows, Bose.
and from another commenter:

Maybe they'll be able to get BOSE to make equipment that [...] has some midrange.
If I've read that right one of you is complaining that there isn't enough midrange, and the other is complaining that there is too much. Is there any consensus on what is 'wrong' with Bose sound... or is this just one of those pedantic arguments that audiophiles have while the rest of us just go and buy Bose equipment because it makes us perfectly happy?
1. Re:Mutually exclusive by mcescalante · 2011-04-30 16:24 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, audiophiles all love to argue about Bose's shortcoming with audio because their systems are greatly overpriced. I personally consider myself an audiophile, and I have no issue with Bose, although I wouldn't buy it as the system for my home theater / audio rig. It's just too damn expensive for the sound you're getting. Guarantee you could find 20 different opinions of what is wrong with Boses sound from audiophiles, all different.
2. Re:Mutually exclusive by Pyrion · 2011-04-30 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, the consensus is that friends don't let friends buy Bose.
  
  --
  "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
3. Re:Mutually exclusive by PhunkySchtuff · 2011-04-30 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Bose make some very good speaker systems. They also make some quite average-sounding speaker systems. They are all overpriced for what they deliver though, but the marketing behind them, and the sleek industrial design, makes sales for them.
  Some of the high-end Bose stuff is quite good. Their midrange stuff is probably what was being referred to when mentioning no midrange.
  Bose's more popular systems are the small coffee-cup sized satellite speakers and a large subwoofer. The satellites are great at producing high frequency sounds and the sub can generally put out more than enough bass for the system, but there's usually a lot of midrange sound missing. They are very carefully eq'd in store and set up in such a way that they sound as good as they can, and it's usually the abundance of warm and smooth bass that gets people hooked on them (along with the marketing)
  Bose also do a vast amount of work that's completely unknown by the majority of the population - things like an experimental electromagnetic suspension system for cars - I've seen a video of what looks like a regular saloon car taking speed humps at a decent speed and the body of the car barely moves, it's all soaked up in the suspension. It's very heavy though and needs large amounts of power, which is why we're not driving around with it today, but aspects of it are working their way into production systems...
  
  --
  Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
4. Re:Mutually exclusive by Jafafa+Hots · 2011-04-30 16:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The problem with Bose radios is they need green ink on them to improve the sound quality.
  http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/?page_id=504
  (Warning - link is NSFAS Not safe for the allergic to stupid)
  
  --
  This space available.
5. Re:Mutually exclusive by ChrisMaple · 2011-04-30 18:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It depends upon the model. Speaking of speaker systems only, some used resonance to produce boomy base to impress the rubes, leaving inadequate response at deep base and low-mids.
  Other speakers, particularly the long-time top-of-the-line 901s, used active compensation to extend the somewhat flat range as far to the high and low as practical. Bose used 9 cheap 5" drivers in each 901, with the result that decent response up to 20 kHz was impossible, as was low distortion and good response at 20 Hz. Due to the complication of having all those drivers and the active compensation box, A.G.Bose claimed (in the class he taught) that the profit margin on the 901s was actually quite small, and the claim seems almost reasonable to me.
  Professional speaker designers at more reputable firms joke that Bose's slogan "better sound through research" should read "better sales through advertising".
  The fact is that speakers that sound good in isolation appeal to large numbers of uncritical listeners, and that's where Bose does well. A competent critical listener, or someone in a position to A-B against similarly priced reputable brands, will find Bose lacking.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
6. Re:Mutually exclusive by bzipitidoo · 2011-04-30 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, my impression of Bose is mediocre sound with high end price. It works, but it sure isn't the awesomeness their advertising makes it out to be.
  I find putting bass speakers on a hard surface really helps. Had the subwoofer of a cheap 5.1 system (not Bose) on a carpeted floor, and all I did was slide some scrap plywood (about 3x4 ft) under it. Did wonders for clarity and sound projection. Can feel the board vibrating when you rest a hand on it. Haven't stumbled over an easy way to improve the higher ranges.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
7. Re:Mutually exclusive by wagnerrp · 2011-04-30 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ink on a digital medium that goes through CRC? Please tell me that is a joke....
8. Re:Mutually exclusive by Sulphur · 2011-04-30 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  Ink on a digital medium that goes through CRC? Please tell me that is a joke....
  I need a vacuum tube computer to accurately reproduce that.
9. Re:Mutually exclusive by Hognoxious · 2011-04-30 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  If I've read that right one of you is complaining that there isn't enough midrange, and the other is complaining that there is too much.
  Nope, he's complaining about the absence of highs and lows. Not the same thing as too much middle at all.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
10. Re:Mutually exclusive by Jafafa+Hots · 2011-04-30 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Nope.
  That was a HUGE thing in the late 80s and early 90s. There were tons of Cd "treatments" talked about and sold to make CDs sound better... from green sharpies with a special notch cut out to fit the CD, to tales of using Armor All on discs.
  NOT just run of the mill cranks either. Magazines such as Stereophile and others promoted these idiotic ideas as true and screamed at anyone who dared point out that their claims of "bit flutter" were idiotic.
  These same publications were behind the whole Monster Cable bullshit too, promoting special "oxygen free" copper cables even for fully digital connections.
  I don't know if there are still morons out there putting green ink on CDs or if they've all moved on to global warming denial or Obama birth certificate outrage.
  
  --
  This space available.
11. Re:Mutually exclusive by Falconhell · 2011-04-30 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, my beef with Bose is a lack of overall efficiency. Often as much as 10db 1W/1M less than others. So lack of top bottom and mids makes sense to me!
12. Re:Mutually exclusive by epyT-R · 2011-04-30 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  some are referring to the large bose systems like the 901s.. others are referring to the satellite systems.
  just because something makes you happy doesn't mean it isn't stupid or better according to objective measurement. if blowing lots of money on mediocre technology in nice shiny plastic boxes turns you on, so be it. it's still a stupid decision.
13. Re:Mutually exclusive by epyT-R · 2011-04-30 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  be careful here. when people say audiophile today they mean the religious zealot variety.. you should have a problem with bose. objectively speaking, their products do not offer good value for the money. either the same sound can be purchased for 1/10th the price (3200$ lifestyle vs $320 hometheater-in-a-box systems from decent brands), or you can do a lot better for the price point asked. 3200$ buys you a very nice system. the fact is that no matter how much one 'engineers' things, it's impossible for smaller speakers to make good sound in a large soundstage compared with larger ones. if size is more important than sound quality, than it is not necessary to spend a lot of money to get the best available. bose isn't any better than anything else in that size category. they use the same sub-par driver and baffling designs as well as the same cheap materials in their cabinets that most vendors use in their $150-300 kits. they just charge 10x the price.
14. Re:Mutually exclusive by epyT-R · 2011-04-30 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the high-end Bose stuff is quite good.
  I"m sure it's not worth the money. I can't speak for their pro stuff, but the consumer stuff is garbage, especially for the money.
  
  The satellites are great at producing high frequency sounds
  
  no.. modern tweeter designs in the last 15 years can handle 20-25khz (even higher on some systems). the current bose designs still use treated paper cones like speakers did in the 1970s. the best paper cone tweeters peak at 16khz or so. the cheap $0.50 drivers in the satellites are hardly the best.
  
  and the sub can generally put out more than enough bass for the system,
  no. it's a terrible design. the sub isnt' even really a sub because it can't reproduce subsonic frequencies. it's three 5.25" drivers inside a baffle that emphasizes midbass frequencies at the expense of accuracy.
  
  and it's usually the abundance of warm and smooth bass that gets people hooked on them (along with the marketing)
  in other words, it sounds like a boombox with the bass turned up all the way. this is fine for a $100 tabletop radio or $300 home-theater-in-a-box. it is not high fidelity audio worthy of a $3200 price tag.
15. Re:Mutually exclusive by SimonTheSoundMan · 2011-04-30 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  Bose's more popular systems are the small coffee-cup sized satellite speakers and a large subwoofer.
  A "subwoofer" is not large if it has a 5 inch driver. That's not even large enough to perform as a decent low-bass driver, more of a low-mid, so I wouldn't call it a subwoofer.
16. Re:Mutually exclusive by kuzb · 2011-05-01 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Bose make some very good speaker systems" - you should probably stop talking right now, you've lost all credibility with this statement.
  
  --
  BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
17. Re:Mutually exclusive by PhunkySchtuff · 2011-05-01 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Bose's real high-end products, their pro audio and their commercial products are pretty good. Their in-car audio systems likewise are pretty good. About the only "good" audio equipment you can get retail however are their (overpriced) quiet comfort headphones.
  All the shiny things you see in a Bose retail store are just a fraction of the things that Bose actually make.
  
  --
  Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
18. Re:Mutually exclusive by DinDaddy · 2011-05-01 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Audiophiles don't even discuss Bose.
  Regular old audio enthusiasts despise them though, for the simple fact their performance is well below their price point. The basic small cube speaker that most of their recent systems are built around is literally about $4 in cheap parts, including a single type of fill range driver with no high end, and its only real claim to quality is that it is probably better than the speakers in your TV.
  Most people who despise Bose would probably admit that if their stuff were priced at about 25% of what they charge, it would be a fair deal. They have packaged their systems in ways that are attractive and unobtrusive and therefore appealing to those who don't want the audio stuff on display. Their performance shortcomings are, as noted, no necessarily objectionable to the mass market.
  What they have then done is what so many people accuse Apple of, spent incredible amounts of money on marketing these low end products as being the top of the market. They also play the retail game very well, establishing very strict rules about displaying their systems, and not allowing them to be demonstrated side by side with competitors. Additionally, in the live demos with presenters, they often back up their components with absurdly high end components to wring the last bit of performance out of them, stuff that no one purchasing their equipment is likely to ever even consider purchasing.
  The comments you refer to above are in fact both true. You can see in the graphs at this link http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html that the crossover point between their "subwoofer" (a bass module that doesn't actually reach even reach anywhere near the bottom of the audible range) and the satellite drivers leaves a gap in coverage. The sat speakers also roll off in the low teens, below where even most middle aged people's hearing has begun to attenuate.
  So there are no highs, no lows, and there is also a big hole in their midrange as well.
Very appropriate by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 16:33 · Score: 0

Both put out products that are mediocre and overpriced, and have greatly overinflated opinions of themselves.
Lows for the size by tepples · 2011-04-30 16:37 · Score: 1

Among self-contained radios as small as a Wave music system, can you recommend one with better lows?
1. Re:Lows for the size by ColdWetDog · 2011-04-30 16:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Among self-contained radios as small as a Wave music system, can you recommend one with better lows?
  Just tune to pretty much any Country / Western channel. That'll bring you down.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Lows for the size by by+(1706743) · 2011-04-30 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  I've only listened to one of those once or twice, and I thought it sounded ok. However, for $500, you could have an entry level component system (skimp on the receiver, not on the speakers). Heck, I bet you could rival the sound quality with a good pair of computer speakers (with sub) plugged into the headphone-out of a decent clock-radio-CD player. That should cost well under $500.
  
  Of course, aesthetics and size matter to some, and a Bose system certainly beats computer speakers. Of course, you can always beat the performance and/or make a "neater" system, if you're willing to buy used and wait for good deals -- I've scrapped together a modest system over the years, and having spent probably under $100, I have a pair of 80s Klipsch floorstanding speakers, a 60s (?) tube amp, an 80s receiver (which I use as a preamp) and a decent-sized 80s SS power amp (in case the ol' tube needs work...I hope to bi-amp it some day). Fun stuff, but not as chic (or compact) as the Wave system, to be sure.
3. Re:Lows for the size by thegarbz · 2011-04-30 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, aesthetics and size matter to some,
  And that's the key bit right there. There's nothing good about Bose's sound. Their high end systems lack midrange and any form of soundstage instead option for a system that can be barely seen. Pretty much every other audio company can beat the quality of a Bose system, but you end up with some large boxes in the living room.
  Personally if the budget can stretch I'd much prefer a system from the likes of Bang and Olufsen who don't try to make the system disappear but rather make it a part of the design of the house. Mind you for the extortionate costs of a B&O system you can also do better for the money.
4. Re:Lows for the size by thegarbz · 2011-04-30 21:36 · Score: 2
  
  Take a look at anything from Tivoli audio like the Model One. They have a downfiring port so placing them on a wooden table helps even more. But I was absolutely blown away by how much better they sound and look (retro) than the Bose crap.
5. Re:Lows for the size by KozmoStevnNaut · 2011-04-30 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree that most B&O products are quite overpriced, I have yet to hear better speakers for the price of a set of BeoLab 5's.
  They're ridiculously expensive, yes, but they sound absolutely amazing.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
6. Re:Lows for the size by SimonTheSoundMan · 2011-04-30 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  At least B&O are open about the sound/picture quality of their products. They admit they do not sound/look the best for the money, but you pay for the nice design and extras like motorised TV stands and they self calibrate etc.
7. Re:Lows for the size by the+eric+conspiracy · 2011-05-01 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Beolab 5 like all omnidirectional speakers can generate a very pleasing sound effect. The Beolab 5 also uses some nice components. HOWEVER there are some fundamental flaws to the design that make it unsuitable for critical music reproduction. In particular this design is subject to what is known as the "flanging effect" that makes creation of a good stereo image impossible because of the upper and lower discs. It is an interference or comb-filter in the audio spectrum. These speakers also have a dip in the upper bass / lower midrange which may or may not be to your taste, but is certainly not accurate.
  It's a gimmick speaker which will sound unique in a pleasing manner and sell well - but not to people who have developed a critical ear.
  Go listen to Dynaudio, Wilson, Revel, B&W, Aerial and so on. It takes a while to develop a good ear for these things and the only way to do it is to get out there and hear them. If you can swing it buy some examples of these speakers and live with them. You can get some really good deals on used ones, and speaker technology doesn't change very fast. It's mostly about electromechanical components and getting the best materials, then refining the crossovers and cabinets.
8. Re:Lows for the size by KozmoStevnNaut · 2011-05-01 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  I worked at B&O a couple of years ago (that touchscreen remote? I worked on that) and during my stay there I listened to more music on more stereos that I would have imagined. B&W, obviously and Dynaudio was well-represented, being a Danish company and all that.
  The BL5s consistently sounded the best to me when compared to similarly-priced speakers when playing music I'd listened to hundreds of times and knew extremely well. It was subjected to endless listening panels during development and various employees tested them in their homes for months at a time.
  I found no flaws with the stereo imaging, I could close my eyes and pick out the locations of the various instruments. I get the feeling you've read the specs and come to your own conclusions. The BL5 is by no means a "pure audiophile" speaker, it uses heaps and heaps of signal processing and other trickery to do what it does. It's very much a product of a highly-skilled team of engineers making a speaker that would fit a certain designer's vision and still sound damn good and they did extremely well.
  I worked at B&O for years. I have precisely two of their products in my house; a bottle cap opener and a cordless telephone.
  My stereo consists of a 2x50w Pioneer stereo amp and a Pioneer CD player circa 1996 vintage. The speakers are a set of Audiovectors (I like Danish speakers) that I bought used from another employee at B&O.
  And you know what? I plays all my music so well that I can't help but tap my feet and sing along. I'm an audiophile, not a gearophile.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
9. Re:Lows for the size by swalve · 2011-05-01 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. As someone above said, Bose is the Apple of audio reproduction. Slick interface, targeting the "consumer" category of purchaser. There is nothing wrong with it, just as there is nothing wrong with a fast-looking car that doesn't go fast. Not everybody wants to go fast. With high performance often comes more difficulty and fiddling with knobs, and not everyone wants to do that.
  My system is a pair of dead standard Pioneer three way speakers purchased in 1989 for $100, although the woofers got replaced/upgraded a few years ago with some updated (also Pioneer) woofers, driven by a Panasonic SA-XR55. (Look at the specs! 4 - 88k hz, and pretty much dead flat all across!) I have never heard a cleaner sounding system, ever. (Perhaps outside of a movie theater.) Throw in some classical music, close your eyes, and you can pretty much visualize sitting in the performance space wherever the microphones were placed.
  I like to use classical for testing like this because it is about the only music you can get that is relatively production-free. Microphones in a room with people playing unamplified instruments. You can't test a sound system with something made on a mixing board, because you don't know if what you are hearing is an artifact of your sound system, or some kind of effect put on by the recording engineer. I mean, there is nothing better than a nice Boston album, but that is a sound creation, not a sound reproduction.
10. Re:Lows for the size by the+eric+conspiracy · 2011-05-01 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't a matter of reading specs. Speakers, almost more than anything else you can buy tell you nothing about the performance you get from their specifications.
  It's a knowledge of basic physics plus looking at designs plus having listened to a lot of speakers and having read reviews of the BL5 by people who also understand these principles.
  There is a reason that you don't see omnidirectional or vertical axial radiating speakers in critical installations like mixing studios. A key factor in sound reproduction is that the sound field gets muddled by reflections from the room walls. Acoustic treatment of listening rooms always has management of reflection points as a key goal.
  Speakers designed like the BL5 have a lot more of these reflections. Add in other design factors like the double flanges and the two midranges and you are going have issues. It's Acoustics 101.
  If you are interested in the science, get some of the books by Leo Beranek and Floyd Toole. Baranek was a professor at MIT and founder of Bolt Beranek and Newman who were famous for designing the acoustics of the Unite Nations Assembly Hall along with having a key role in the founding of the internet. Dr. Floyd Toole ran the acoustics testing program for the Canadian National Research Council which was responsible for the success of several Canadian speaker companies, and later became the head of Research at Harman (parent company of JBL, Infinity, Revel etc).
11. Re:Lows for the size by kuzb · 2011-05-01 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  You sort of remind me of wine tasters. Nothing says "douche" quite like giving an opinion without something more concrete to back it up.
  
  --
  BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
12. Re:Lows for the size by thegarbz · 2011-05-01 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, at the local launch of the latest BeoCentre 2 one of the product development gurus from the Netherlands was present and he told me in his very broken english, "The BeoCentre does not belong in your hometheater, it belongs in your living room." Kind of sums up the entire company quite well, unlike Bose who's main slogan is "Better sound through research"
13. Re:Lows for the size by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  Take a look at anything from Tivoli audio like the Model One. They have a downfiring port so placing them on a wooden table helps even more. But I was absolutely blown away by how much better they sound and look (retro) than the Bose crap.
  Tivoli = blech
  The Bowers and Wilkins Zeppelin absolutely destroys both of them...in looks, usability, sound. Just better in every way.
14. Re:Lows for the size by thegarbz · 2011-05-01 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  As others have mentioned they are an omni-directional speaker. This is fantastic for the couch, in a room that is not ideal or not setup correctly. The sound stage sounds rather average in the grand scheme of things, but it is consistent over a wide range of listening positions in the room. This is quite the opposite from a normal set of speakers which rely on very careful positioning to minimise interactions with the rest of the room.
  The BeoLabs sound good pretty much anywhere you put them. Normal speakers sound average if they aren't placed right, or you're not seated in the "sweet spot", or your room isn't ideal (concrete walls really suck). However a normal set of speakers without any fancy processing or over the top design can in the end produce a far better sound for your dollar if you can place them carefully in a decent room, and sit in a decent listening position.
  Like all parts of the audio industry, this is a tradeoff.
15. Re:Lows for the size by KozmoStevnNaut · 2011-05-01 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  How many people have dedicated listening rooms, with carefully set up furniture, non-reflective walls with a comfy chair at the sweet spot? And how many people sit there in that chair listening to music for hours and hours?
  Not very many compared to the people who want speakers in an ordinary living room and want them to sound really good as much of the time as possible, no matter where in the room they are or what they're doing.
  They're not the best when you're in the sweet spot, but they're miles better than anything else once you aren't.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
16. Re:Lows for the size by KozmoStevnNaut · 2011-05-01 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about specs, it's not about reviews, it's not about which is the better speaker on paper.
  It's about which speakers gives you the best sound the most of the time. There are better speakers if you sit right in the sweet spot in a perfect room, but the BL5 are miles ahead of anything else for the real world.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
17. Re:Lows for the size by thegarbz · 2011-05-01 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  I can count 3 people in the street. Ok so 2 of them aren't dedicated listening rooms, but any rooms can really be turned into a very good listening environment.
  Don't put big speakers in corners, don't face speaker ports to walls, angle them in slightly, try and keep an almost equilateral triangle to the listening position. A decent rug can do wonders on the floor as can selecting the right curtain if you have windows behind you.
  It really is that simple, and with that you can pretty much set up most living rooms to be decent listening rooms with only limited moaning from the significant other. (The hardest part actually is convincing them that the speakers shouldn't be placed right against the wall). If you have a large enough room that sweet spot should suit 2 or 3 seats too.
  But then really you're also asking about how many people listen for music for hours? Well if you don't chances are you wouldn't be paying for an expensive hifi to begin with. As I mentioned this is a design trade off but do have a look around, I think you'll find the number of people who like to seriously listen to music is much higher than you think, and I think you'll find the number of people who opted for expensive floor standers to mounted bookshelf speakers in the same price range as B&O and Bose is also far higher than you think.
  * kinda depends what area you live in though.
18. Re:Lows for the size by KozmoStevnNaut · 2011-05-03 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Odd having a product development guru coming from the Netherlands when the company is located in Denmark.
  Heck, I probably worked with him for a while :-)
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
Meh! by martin-boundary · 2011-04-30 16:38 · Score: 1

Donations to MIT are so passé. Why not pick a random fast talking black kid from the Cambridge streets and give him that company CEO's job and house? Also, cancel all the previous CEO's credit cards and boot him out onto the street.
I bet the outcome of this experiment would surprise us all!
1. Re:Meh! by ThorGod · 2011-04-30 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, it's very full of 'meh'.
  So a big name school with plenty of funding is going to get a bigger, more funded name.
  He would have been better off donating his company to a more needy university/college (or several).
  
  --
  PS: I don't reply to ACs.
2. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  Are you a fucking retard?
  What has that black kid done to deserve the CEO's job? Fucking entitlement babies all around. If you want to be a CEO, go start your own damn company.
3. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  No surprise there, he'll squander it on crack and hookers. Duh!
4. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  Are you a fucking retard?
  No, he's friends with Mortimer and Randolph.
5. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  Whoosh!
6. Re:Meh! by ChrisMaple · 2011-04-30 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why not pick a random fast talking black kid from the Cambridge streets and give him that company CEO's job and house?
  The first week I lived in Cambridge my bicycle, locked to a rack at MIT, was stolen. In all likelihood a kid like the one you described committed that crime. Put him in the CEO position, and he'll be immensely corrupt and probably destroy the company. That's why not.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
7. Re:Meh! by mini+me · 2011-04-30 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Put him in the CEO position, and he'll be immensely corrupt
  I fail to see the problem. Sounds like he is perfect for the job.
8. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  > I bet the outcome of this experiment would surprise us all!
  You've not seen Trading Places then?
9. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  Why?
10. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 21:21 · Score: 0
  
  Well, perhaps some MIT engineers may choose Bose and developer better Bose products, as a result. Or the MIT job / intern placement folks may go nuts, and who knows what may be developed, and come to market?
  Investing heaving in research from production would seem to be exactly the sort of thing I would expect Slashdot types to adore, given their absolutely freaky preference for some ho-hum Google "Android" phone over a nice $1M Goldstriker iPhone 4, etc.
  I was never a huge fan of Bose, though I did admire the look of their Wave Cannon, which my technical school (not MIT, my family wouldn't spring for the tuition back when the US$ was higher than C$) and though the AM5 models would be perfect for a res-room, but choose large classic model Klipsch speakers, instead, and an ok 15" Velodyne subwoofer.
  If you look at the stereo market (http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist.htm), you'll see that there's quite a bit of room for innovation, and you can buy an aweful lot of Bose-priced speakers for a $6,950,000 Sharp audio pair. The list here stops at less than $100,000 per pair, but there are still plenty of companies offering even speakers between that $100,000 / pair "hi-fi" range, and your typical $349.95 Bose Wave Radio. Who'se to say a donation of stock to MIT might help Bose compete with more "popular" designs?
  I'm sure MIT could in principle propel Bose past it's present "laurels" and into interesting territory. A lot of neat stuff comes out of the Media Lab, and might be just what the CEO ordered, if early access was an option.
  Before I retired anyway, one of my last "gigs" was at a local government-corporate-education funded New Media lab, working on projects for the likes of Sony and EA. Not the best model in the world, as outputs had to be shared with partners, but still I see room for more reasonable arrangements between industry and education than the vending machine business, or textbooks, or condos / houses on campus for city folk, etc. say... etc.
  My 3c.
11. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  I think that experiment would work better in Philadelphia. In unrelated news, did you see where an African prince (not Nigerian) in Queens, NY, gave a McDonald's or McDowell's bag full of money to two ex-CEOs who had lost everything and were living in a box by the river? That's like the converse of the experiment you proposed.
12. Re:Meh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Dan Aykroid and Eddie Murphy can star in the screenplay!
13. Re:Meh! by ZigiSamblak · 2011-05-01 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Donations to MIT are so passé. Why not pick a random fast talking black kid from the Cambridge streets and give him that company CEO's job and house? Also, cancel all the previous CEO's credit cards and boot him out onto the street.
  I bet the outcome of this experiment would surprise us all!
  Didn't they already try that in Trading Places?
Monster expensive? by tepples · 2011-04-30 16:40 · Score: 0

When Monster's component A/V cable for Wii is cheaper than Nintendo's, the "Monster cables are expensive" meme begins to sound less sustainable.
1. Re:Monster expensive? by beernutz · 2011-04-30 16:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Monster 1 meter hdmi cable = $99
  Monoprice 6Ft hdmi cable = $2.78
  So, yes, monster cables are EXTREMELY expensive.
  
  --
  (stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
2. Re:Monster expensive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 17:03 · Score: 0
  
  Calling it a meme won't make it less true.
  It's basically a legal con.
3. Re:Monster expensive? by siddesu · 2011-04-30 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  Where did I say "Monster cables are expensive"?
4. Re:Monster expensive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  6FT 4 in 1 Component Cable for Xbox 360, Wii, PS3 and PS2: $7.02
  http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=108&cp_id=10830&cs_id=1083007&p_id=5638&seq=1&format=2
5. Re:Monster expensive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 21:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It's more expensive because it uses SI, which makes it sound better than Monoprice's imperial cable.
6. Re:Monster expensive? by Kalriath · 2011-04-30 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's. Digital. Data. You can't make it sound better by changing the composition of the cable.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
7. Re:Monster expensive? by Rakshasa+Taisab · 2011-05-01 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  You're underestimating the impact on quality due to imperial units... Just look at the Mars prove that crashed due to ignoring the obvious benefits of SI based data channels.
  
  --
  - These characters were randomly selected.
8. Re:Monster expensive? by CaptainLard · 2011-05-01 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  For starters, Monster cable is horrendously overpriced. However, at bandwidth higher than what we have data for and distances longer than consumers need, the quality of the cable will make a difference. Cheaper materials and inferior quality control will lead to reflections and interference that will destroy the signal. So in a few years when we all get tricked by manufacturers into buying 1800p tv's, all of our amazon hdmi cables won't be able to pass the signal.
  http://gizmodo.com/#!268788/the-truth-about-monster-cable-part-2-verdict-cheap-cables-keep-upusually (yeah its gizmodo but the test seems legit)
9. Re:Monster expensive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  But you don't understand. The Monster cable delivers more clarify and definition.* So it's worth the extra money.
  * Or something like that. If we were talking about audio cable it would be "a broader soundstage" blah blah blah." I'm not exactly sure what marketing expressions they use for AV cable
10. Re:Monster expensive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  Even if true, by that time they'll have pushed a new connector on the consumer. Your 1800p TV won't use HDMI. It will use something else and you'll have to buy all new cables. So, go ahead and buy the Amazon cables for now.
11. Re:Monster expensive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  meme?
  Oh, meme like, the sky is blue, and the Earth moves around the Sun meme.
  Right.
12. Re:Monster expensive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  For all we know, a meter could be over 200 feet and then Monster would be reasonably priced. Who would be laughing then?
13. Re:Monster expensive? by swalve · 2011-05-01 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  True, but cables aren't about making something sound better. They are about transmitting a signal without losing any of it. Shitty cables can make the digital signal harder for the receiving component to decode and force it to go into error correction/compensation mode. A couple of bad bit-flips might make the signal drop, that's easy. But less-bad bit flips can change the signal without ruining it, leading to badness.
14. Re:Monster expensive? by beernutz · 2011-05-01 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that cable actually INCREASES resolution! lol
  
  --
  (stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
15. Re:Monster expensive? by Kalriath · 2011-05-02 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm having trouble telling if you're joking or not.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
16. Re:Monster expensive? by AmiMoJo · 2011-05-03 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Are you talking about the Beagle 2 project by British scientists? We use metric for all engineering and scientific stuff. We failed because we were shit at making landers and spent too much time raising money and not enough making sure it would actually work, not because we we used the wrong units.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Citation plz by tepples · 2011-04-30 16:42 · Score: 2

True story
What's your source, may I ask?
1. Re:Citation plz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 19:29 · Score: 0
  
  duh!
  He says "True story", obviously he knows that it's true!
  Make a note to yourself:
  Always believe things saying "True story"
2. Re:Citation plz by qwertyatwork · 2011-05-01 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Unicorns, magical beans, and talking dogs!
3. Re:Citation plz by tepples · 2011-05-01 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Unicorns
  Exist.
  
  magical beans
  Thanks to the sufficiently advanced technology of the past few decades, the uses to which soybeans have been put do seem almost magical.
  
  talking dogs
  Exist.
Non-cumulative Preferred Stock by alexander_686 · 2011-04-30 16:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Just to put a finer point on it, it sounds like non-cumulative Preferred Stock [a type of non voting stock with very few rights].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_stock
An article with no sources by Terranex · 2011-04-30 16:44 · Score: 1

Why are their no links to sources? I see the article but without links it's just hearsay.
1. Re:An article with no sources by omz13 · 2011-04-30 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  You can backtrack through the original submission, etc., and eventually get to it at: http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/29/technology/bose_mit_donation/index.htm?eref=mrss_igoogle_business Interestingly enough, BOSE is a private company, and he's donated an undisclosed number of non-voting stock. MIT will essentially have no running of BOSE and benefit from dividends, when and if BOSE do them.
Correction by Terranex · 2011-04-30 16:45 · Score: 1

*there
Can't RTFA by Paradise+Pete · 2011-04-30 17:33 · Score: 3, Funny

I see that slashdot has added a new feature of simply omitting any link, presumably for the e-z convenience of not RTFA.
1. Re:Can't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  Articles linked from CNN's main page can be difficult to find.
  http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/29/technology/bose_mit_donation/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin
A win for MIT's Marketing studies department? by Quick+Reply · 2011-04-30 17:57 · Score: 1

Will MIT give the company to their Electrical Engineering or Management (Marketing studies) department?
Venture capital is far better by Kohath · 2011-04-30 18:30 · Score: 1

Investing the money in a venture capital fund would be far better for people, including MIT students. Venture capital funds startup companies so those MIT grads and graduates of other Universities can actually get jobs using the knowledge they learned in school.
Philanthropy is great, but it spends wealth rather than creating it. (Giving to MIT is more of a gray area in between though.) Venture investments can help the next Bose.
Really no need for complex speaker design for DIY by viking80 · 2011-04-30 18:43 · Score: 1

Having built my own speaker system, I came to realize that the problem with speaker design is to get good sound into a small and shippable product. If you can use your entire house, and many elements, it is trivial to get good sound. For example, many elements covering a wall, each with little effect, is a great subwoofer. After that measure current vs. voltage over the elements to determine element dynamics (Similar to algorithm that controls brushless motors), and feed that back as a correction to the amplifier. Result: perfect reproduction from signal to sound. Adding some sound dampening furniture, carpets, and pictures (print some move posters on canvas with insulation behind) and you are in sound heaven.

--
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Will BOSE finally get THX certification? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 19:10 · Score: 0

I hope so.
1. Re:Will BOSE finally get THX certification? by epyT-R · 2011-04-30 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  why? thx cert is hardly worth anything as it is.. the fact that bose equipment can't get the cert is truly pathetic.. especially considering what is charged for it.
NY-Times article on this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 19:14 · Score: 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/business/30bose.html
Look at his family story by mangu · 2011-04-30 20:39 · Score: 1

funding *American* (not just foreign) PhD students
According to Wikipedia:
"His father, Noni Gopal Bose, was a Bengali freedom revolutionary,[3] who having been imprisoned for his political activities, fled Calcutta in the 1920s in order to avoid further prosecution by the British colonial police."
Maybe if "American" students started fighting for what they believe instead of demanding that everything be given to them they would find it easier to get a PhD.
Audiophiles by DingerX · 2011-04-30 21:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, my PC speakers cost about $150. I listen to music on a set of Grado SR-80 cans that list at $90. If I need to travel, well I got as a gift a pair of Sennheiser PX-360s that run to slightly over a hundred bucks. I am an audiophile in the sense that I enjoy listening to music, and I listen to it on equipment that reproduces it to higher fidelity than the cheapest consumer stuff out there. Sure, I could spend more money, and get myself a proper DAC, a vacuum-tube headphone amp, some high-end headphones, and a totally sweet home theater, but as much as I would appreciate the results, that's not really an expense I can justify.

I can justify buying what I have, and most sensible audiophiles will see the logic in my choices.

Yet all my equipment together doesn't cost as much as a single "moderately-priced" Bose solution that puts out a horribly distorted sound. The reason why Bose's products are so successful is also why people who care about music dislike them: You hear the speakers, not the music. By punching up the bass and the highs, people hear things they don't normally hear in music, but what they hear sounds nothing like the original.

It's the audio equivalent of ketchup, only if ketchup cost four times the price of a decent cut of meat. Bose isn't the opposite of "Gold-plated Ethernet-cable Audiophiles", it's the gateway to that brand of Audiophilia. MIT's gonna make a lot of cash out of Amar's company. Good for them.
Bose??? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 22:52 · Score: 0

Oh ya, the company that sued Consumer Reports over their crappy speakers. Very cool indeed.
Hey, $250k is just the beginning by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-30 23:08 · Score: 0

Don't forget unemployment, and re-training costs for when you get your Ph.D. and there are no jobs.

I'm a white male US citizen with a US Ph.D. working overseas because I can't find a job in the US. And before you start, the ones I'm applying for in the US pay less than half of my current salary. That's quantitative easing for you.
Marketing by valnar · 2011-05-01 01:10 · Score: 0

I was shown once that Bose spent more money on marketing than all other audio companies combined.
It's too bad they can't put that money into product development. Compared to truly outstanding speakers, they fall to pieces.
Immigrant taking away our job.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 01:15 · Score: 0

Did anyone mention that he was one of the Indian immigrant who took away our job.. So what he gave is what he actually owed..
BOSE vs JBL by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 01:19 · Score: 0

Now maybe the genius's at MIT can make light weight BOSS PA Speakers which cost half of JBL's?
They need to be light so the roadies can smoosh them into the horse trailer.
They need to be rugged because roadies drink and do drugs.
They need to be loud cause the fans need to have their ears pinned back in the pit.
Alternatively, maybe they can make a nice shielded computer speaker.
But whatever they do, they ought to bring the price down. Not up.
Tax write off by nurb432 · 2011-05-01 02:08 · Score: 1

wow.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
ECC by tepples · 2011-05-01 04:22 · Score: 1

Shitty cables can make the digital signal harder for the receiving component to decode and force it to go into error correction/compensation mode.
It'd have to be a really shitty cable to degrade the signal that far, with capacitance and the like way off spec. And in my experience, $10 HDMI cables aren't quite that shitty.

But less-bad bit flips can change the signal without ruining it, leading to badness.
HDMI and other recent digital data links have error correction codes just to prevent this. And around that, they usually have an even more sensitive error detection to provide a margin of "unusable signal" code words around each valid code word.
Close... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 05:18 · Score: 0

I always thought they had damn good mid range at a high end price.
.edu by alxkit · 2011-05-01 05:23 · Score: 0

Can you hear me now?
OT: speaking of value by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 06:49 · Score: 0

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/
At least it serves a purpose now by kuzb · 2011-05-01 08:57 · Score: 1

Bose sound equipment is terrible, and it's marketed in such a way that it tricks the customer in to thinking that it sounds better than it really does. Essentially, if you buy a Bose sound system, you really are getting a sub-par product for an over inflated price.

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Bose== Premium quality crap. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:05 · Score: 0

I had a 'Premium' Bose system installed in my car.
I had electronic music I was unable to listen to in the car because entire breakdowns were literally missing from the music. The frequency range had that large a hole in it.
The system did provide strong bass, and a decently loud mid-high range, but did so at the obvious lack of detail and clarity. At times it was like listening to music through a well. high hats became a garbled mess instead of distinctive beats.
The speakers used were cheap paper, and made in Malaysia. They use non standard impedance's too, just to make sure you can never replace them with something better. Good luck finding an aftermarket speaker that runs at 0.5 ohms impedance.
Still. I'm sure it was better then the non premium system.
It's not that Bose is bad, It's that it's so much worse then anything else at it's price point and for no decipherable reason. Any technical improvements they use are arguably less about making good sound and more about keeping their systems incompatible with other amps and speakers.
Contribution of Prof.Bose to MIT and the World by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 11:56 · Score: 0

Prof.Amar Bose is one of the most learned scholars in the field of electrical engg. and he had specialised in the field of sound engg.Coming from a very ordinary background,he attained his status due to immense dedication,sincerity and pursuit of purpose.All along,he had a solid bent of mind esp. in research and this enabled him to pursue bachelors,masters and doctorate degree from the prestigious MIT.
The credit for his stupendous success goes to this parents who saw the zeal of research in him since his early childhood days.His father N.G.Bose was a freedom fighter in India and had come to the US from India during the freedom struggle in India.
Prof.Bose is gratefully remembered at MIT by his faculty members,colleagues and many students fondly .
It is no wonder that his decision to give the majority of shares of his company to his alma mater will bring about the much needed funds required to build up the research activity at MIT and bring it into the next level.
Being an Indian,I feel very proud of his achievements.May his tribe increase.
It is the dream of every Indian to study at MIT and it is the dream of every MITian to become like Prof.Bose.
P.C.Chakravarty.
pcchakravarty2000@yahoo.co.in
1. Re:Contribution of Prof.Bose to MIT and the World by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  hahahah... gotta love indian-style propaganda. the overbearing 'sincerity' coupled with the broken english is quite unique.
Just one reason for this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 12:49 · Score: 0

The only reason for this is that May 21 is approaching.
Fund post-scarcity institutions instead by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-05-01 13:38 · Score: 1

I tend to agree the money could be better allocated, as could the time of many of the students. I wrote a related essay about Pricneton University a couple years ago, and most of it could probably also apply to MIT:
"Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease "
http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html
"We are witnessing a historic end to scarcity of many things (maybe not all, but enough to be a new global Renaissance). But is Princeton University helping prepare either students or the rest of society for these changes? Or is it instead an institution under stress, crashing into these trends instead of moving with them? Or is it perhaps conflicted in how it sees itself and its future, and so trying to do both these conflicting approaches at once? :-) "
That said, MIT has done a lot of amazing stuff, and I'm glad for the free software that has come out of there, as well as ideas like FabLabs fostered by the Center for Bits and Atoms. Some really great stuff does go on at MIT -- it's an issue of cost-effectiveness and institutional outlook and a law of diminishing returns weighed against the value of centralization through the MIT brand. It's hard to invest money well; MIT is a "safe" choice in that sense, even if there might be lots of better options out there. In general though, the whole idea of college is more and more problematical these days. See my comments with further links here:
"[p2p-research] Rebutting CommuniquÃ© from an Absent Future (was Re: Information on student protests)"
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
This Will Not End Well - Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 18:10 · Score: 0

It sounds like a good idea (for MIT) but it's actually a signal presaging the death of the company most of the time. The problem is that the majority shareholder will now be folks who 1) know nothing about running a business so as board members can't contribute any value unlike most company board members who are from industry, and 2) academic institutions are well-known to meddle in political and ideological policies and strategies rather than valid and profitable economic and financial policies and strategies.
I know of a company who's founder similarly donated his company to Cal Tech and they pretty much ran into the ground from being a 1st tier company in its markets to 3rd or 4th tier company. Basically you hear the name in its industry and the universal response is: "Are they still in business? I don't know anyone who bought from them in the last 10 years."
sounds good to me. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 19:22 · Score: 0

I have always liked the way Bose equipment looks but noticed a kind of lack in the midrange. Tweeters are sweet and small and sub sounded suitably woofey. Just as a side note, anyone know if Heil air motion transformers can be scaled up? I always thought a good project would be to make a 10 foot high amazing sounding pyramid of various thickness metal plates.
Apple sibling. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 21:29 · Score: 0

Bose is the Apple of sound.
This just in by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 03:03 · Score: 0

Drew Kaplan was unavailable for comment.
Another Bose Tax Dodge by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 09:42 · Score: 0

Amar Bose, a well-known right-wing wackjob, has been using clever tax-dodge techniques to screw the American public. One way has been thru diversion of money overseas via bogus "transfer pricing". Bose has long claimed the company reinvests all dividends-so what exactly did he give MIT? A stock with no voting rights and no dividends? Why? A tax dodge for sure, that needs some serious investigation. Someone should start with his former secretary, long time mistress, amend finally spouse, Swiss citizen Ursula Bolthauser. No one knows tax dodging more than the Swiss!