Deans have always had pay comparable to private-sector C_Os, because is essentially the same job. But private-sector C_Os used to be paid a whole lot less, too.
There is nothing that college can teach you that can't be learned on the internet for free. Every syllabus, every textbook, every lecture, every lab exercise... already at your finger tips. You are paying a college to provide certification of knowledge, not the knowledge itself.
Honest answer: the boom is not geographically distributed evenly. To an investor or worker in a coastal state, the economy is good. But there are large swaths of the middle of the country that are really struggling. That's why Hillary won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Even if there were full nuclear exchange with 15,000 nuclear warheads raining down across the planet, Earth would still be the most habitable planet in the solar system. There is no plausible scenario where colonizing another would would be easier or cheaper than rebuilding society on Earth.
The US government has done nothing. With the promise of continuing to do nothing. Now business can operate under the assumption that there will be no new taxes or regulations for at least the next four years. Sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action.
Jobs are up. Stock market is up. Consumer confidence is up. Precious metals are down. If you really think the economy is about to hit the fan, then you can make a fortune by betting against the experts.
You do realize that I pay property tax as well as you do
No. I don't think you pay property taxes. I don't think you have children. I doubt you're even an adult. This is simply apparent from reading your comment history. I don't mean this as an insult, but it is important that you realize that you're not actually fooling anyone.
Since when in the history of Western Civilization has a piece of paper ever prevented the exploitation of an economic resource? You're either being delightfully naive or willfully ignorant. The only reason the Antarctic treaty is even enforceable is because the technology doesn't exist to further develop Antarctica beyond a few bases that would quickly die without outside support. And if we can't colonize Antarctica, then we sure can't colonize dead rocks in space.
Our species has been living on this planet for over 200 millennia, mostly without the benefit of technology. Similar hominid species were thriving for over 3 million years. What *exactly* do you expect is going to change in the next century or two? Even if the Earth were to be hit simultaneously by global warming, nuclear war and a comet, it would still be infinitely more habitable than any known planet. We have an entire continent (Antarctica) that hasn't even begun to be colonized and you're ready to write off the whole planet.
As someone with no children, I am perfectly cool with your plan with two caveats: (1) I'm not paying a single dime to the taxes to educate your brood at any level (2) you lose all tax benefits of having dependents. Based on my property tax bill alone, this is more than $8,000 per year. Having an extra $300,000 plus interest in the bank when I retire will more than offset the meager loss of Social Security.
Longevity is not correlated with overpopulation. Most of the countries with over population problems are among those with the lowest life expectancy and vice versa.
You are vastly underestimating grad students. All grad students already have a bachelor's degree, had high enough grades to get accepted to grad school and had previous undergraduate research experience. Most incoming grad students have already published research papers. Many of them have had industry experience between undergrad and grad school. The average age of grad students is 33 years old.
We're talking about mid-career professionals, not wet-behind the ears newbies.
Grants >> glory. Almost everyone in scientific research is aware of the problem and wants to address it. But money is the problem. If there were grants to fund replication of results, then scientists would be jumping at the opportunity.
In practice, we are not using printed journals. Almost every journal has an on-line supplement section where authors can include all of the information you just mentioned and much more.
Here is the honest truth: there is not currently a realistic mechanism to allow a brain to bilaterally interface with a computer in any meaningful way. So without even a blueprint for how it might work, it is impossible to have a useful discussion about the concept.
Nope. Take Texas out and a candidate would only need 251 electoral votes to win. All other things being the same, Trump would have gotten 268 and still would have won. There is no single state elimination that would have given the election to Clinton.
Not the kind of resources that can stabilize an ecosystem. A dome on the moon, a tunnel on Mars and an O'Neill Cylinder in space are all fishbowls of different varieties.
Sounds like you've had crummy insurance. I have State Farm for my auto and home. I've had to use my auto insurance twice and my home insurance once (for a break-in). All 3 times the payment was within a few weeks for the maximum coverage amount. No arguments. No hassles.
Maybe I could save a few bucks a month by switching to one of the cheaper companies. But its worth it have good insurance when the chips are down.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. State by state polls were consistently wrong, overestimating Clinton's performance in swing states.
Deans have always had pay comparable to private-sector C_Os, because is essentially the same job. But private-sector C_Os used to be paid a whole lot less, too.
There is nothing that college can teach you that can't be learned on the internet for free. Every syllabus, every textbook, every lecture, every lab exercise... already at your finger tips. You are paying a college to provide certification of knowledge, not the knowledge itself.
Sound like you've got it all figured out. I look forward to hearing about your newly earned fortune in a few months.
Honest answer: the boom is not geographically distributed evenly. To an investor or worker in a coastal state, the economy is good. But there are large swaths of the middle of the country that are really struggling. That's why Hillary won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Even if there were full nuclear exchange with 15,000 nuclear warheads raining down across the planet, Earth would still be the most habitable planet in the solar system. There is no plausible scenario where colonizing another would would be easier or cheaper than rebuilding society on Earth.
The US government has done nothing. With the promise of continuing to do nothing. Now business can operate under the assumption that there will be no new taxes or regulations for at least the next four years. Sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action.
Jobs are up. Stock market is up. Consumer confidence is up. Precious metals are down. If you really think the economy is about to hit the fan, then you can make a fortune by betting against the experts.
No. I don't think you pay property taxes. I don't think you have children. I doubt you're even an adult. This is simply apparent from reading your comment history. I don't mean this as an insult, but it is important that you realize that you're not actually fooling anyone.
Since when in the history of Western Civilization has a piece of paper ever prevented the exploitation of an economic resource? You're either being delightfully naive or willfully ignorant. The only reason the Antarctic treaty is even enforceable is because the technology doesn't exist to further develop Antarctica beyond a few bases that would quickly die without outside support. And if we can't colonize Antarctica, then we sure can't colonize dead rocks in space.
Our species has been living on this planet for over 200 millennia, mostly without the benefit of technology. Similar hominid species were thriving for over 3 million years. What *exactly* do you expect is going to change in the next century or two? Even if the Earth were to be hit simultaneously by global warming, nuclear war and a comet, it would still be infinitely more habitable than any known planet. We have an entire continent (Antarctica) that hasn't even begun to be colonized and you're ready to write off the whole planet.
As someone with no children, I am perfectly cool with your plan with two caveats: (1) I'm not paying a single dime to the taxes to educate your brood at any level (2) you lose all tax benefits of having dependents. Based on my property tax bill alone, this is more than $8,000 per year. Having an extra $300,000 plus interest in the bank when I retire will more than offset the meager loss of Social Security.
Longevity is not correlated with overpopulation. Most of the countries with over population problems are among those with the lowest life expectancy and vice versa.
You've had a PhD for 10 years, but you can't type 5 words into google? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=average+a...
You are vastly underestimating grad students. All grad students already have a bachelor's degree, had high enough grades to get accepted to grad school and had previous undergraduate research experience. Most incoming grad students have already published research papers. Many of them have had industry experience between undergrad and grad school. The average age of grad students is 33 years old. We're talking about mid-career professionals, not wet-behind the ears newbies.
Grants >> glory. Almost everyone in scientific research is aware of the problem and wants to address it. But money is the problem. If there were grants to fund replication of results, then scientists would be jumping at the opportunity.
In practice, we are not using printed journals. Almost every journal has an on-line supplement section where authors can include all of the information you just mentioned and much more.
Here is the honest truth: there is not currently a realistic mechanism to allow a brain to bilaterally interface with a computer in any meaningful way. So without even a blueprint for how it might work, it is impossible to have a useful discussion about the concept.
Nope. Take Texas out and a candidate would only need 251 electoral votes to win. All other things being the same, Trump would have gotten 268 and still would have won. There is no single state elimination that would have given the election to Clinton.
Maybe because this is the second Republican in a row to lose the popular vote but win the electoral college.
If you're worried about living expenses (retirement, Social security, senior discounts), you're not in the economic bracket to afford the treatment.
Self-driving cars don't have to be perfect, they just have to better than the average human driver. And the average human driver sucks.
Not the kind of resources that can stabilize an ecosystem. A dome on the moon, a tunnel on Mars and an O'Neill Cylinder in space are all fishbowls of different varieties.
Maybe I could save a few bucks a month by switching to one of the cheaper companies. But its worth it have good insurance when the chips are down.
You don't need to go to Mars to do that. Lots on uninhabited Antarctic islands to build your John Galt paradise.