The problem is that Universities are marketing it as something akin to professional certification (and many businesses are treating it as something akin to professional certification).
Several people posted about what mpg they get with a hybrid, how many of those people have actually measured their mileage by dividing the number of miles they have driven by the number of gallons they have used? Or did they just use the number given by the cars computer? I do not know how the car calculates mpg, but I do know that the numbers given by several on board readouts are not necessarily accurate.
You started out making a good point. One of the reasons that gas mileage has not improved more is because the government has mandated more safety features, which increase the curb weight of cars.
What the size of the federal basic research budget should be is a completely different question. The question under discussion is whether the government report as worded makes its case. Its case is based on the fact that the federal basic research budget is only 57% of the total money spent on basic research and in 1980 it was 70% of the total. That fact is irrelevant. You may argue that the federal government should spend more on basic research, but there is no reason why the federal government's share of the total amount of money spent on basic research should remain constant.
At no point did I argue about what the federal basic research budget should be. I argued that this report was pure propaganda. Of course, when one argues that things like the federal budget should be decided on the basis of what the money is being spent on rather than some artificial comparison to what it was in the past that makes one a "right-winger" and all of one's arguments can be dismissed.
You hit the nail on the head. My thought was, "Unless we know how much the federal government is spending today on basic research versus how much it spent on basic research in 1980 (adjusted for inflation), percentages don't tell us anything." Additionally, the fact that they chose to present it as percentage of total spending on basic research suggests that in fact federal spending on basic research has increased at well above the inflation rate (just like most of the federal budget). Actually, I just read the summary of the report where it states that government funding of basic research has increased, but not by as much as the authors think it should have.
You seem to have missed my point. As the term is used by most people, capitalism is an economic system that is the opposite of a centrally planned economy. So, I still do not know what you mean by "creeping capitalism". I am guessing what you mean is "creeping fascism" since you do not seem to share the same definition of capitalism that most people use.
First of all, when I said "the Iranians" I was referring to the government. I don't know if you have noticed, but the Iranian government is composed of Iranians.
Considering that the Iranian government provided significant support to the Egyptians, who exactly is going to provide the support to the Iranians who want to overthrow their current government (and considering that the Egyptians are in the process of replacing their former government with one that looks a lot like the Iranian one)?
You, also, seem to have overlooked the fact that the Iranian government is threatening to create a complete military embargo of the Straits of Hormuz. Considering the nature of the people running that government, that should not be dismissed as pure bluff.
The problem with looking for "Protestant Reformation" of Islam is that the reforms of the Protestant Reformation were based on the Christian scripture and primarily involved doing away with problems that had involved traditions that had come to override scriptural instruction (often times traditions that had originally been originated to deal with earlier problems of corruption that had themselves become corrupted). The problem with Islam is that much of the nasty stuff is written into their scripture (with very little, if any, basis in that scripture for overriding the nasty stuff).
Sorry if I gave the impression that I was talking about the average Iranian, I used Iranian to refer to what those in power in Iran have been saying since the Revolution.
However, I think that you overemphasize the distinction between the three power blocks. In order to have significant power in either the Revolutionary Guards or the "civilian" government you must be a member of, and have a power base within, the "religious authorities". Your summary implies that the three groups are competing for power, when in fact two of the three groups are subsets of the third that are used by members of the third in their jockeying for power within that third. Also, your description of the Revolutionary Guards is somewhat flawed. The Revolutionary Guard is a separate entity from the Iranian military. The Revolutionary Guard is really just muscle for the "religious authorities" (although well enough armed that it could, at least theoretically) stand off the actual military.
You really haven't been listening have you? The Iranians have been telling anyone who wants to listen why they are doing this. They have said that their goal is the subjugation of the entire world to Islamic rule, as understood by them.
There is another angle that involves creeping capitalism,...
What is "creeping capitalism"? It sounds from the rest of the sentence like you are talking about the natural tendency of the powerful (in this case large corporations) to take over all of the levers of power in any centrally planned economy (fascism, socialism, communism, "crony capitialism").
The fallacy here is that newspapers are going belly up because of the Internet, readership of newspapers was dropping before the Internet came on the scene.
The difference being that most backup files are not accessible to the running machine except at the time the backup is made (or when a restore is in progress).
Considering that Romney is a Mormon and no Christian Fundamentalists consider Mormons to be Christian, let alone Fundamentalists and Santorum is Roman Catholic and only a slightly larger number of Christian Fundamentalists consider Catholics to be Christian and none consider them to be Fundamentalist that would be incorrect.
Most sane republicans would prefer 4 more year of Obama,
No, sane person would prefer 4 more years of Obama to any of the candidates in the field (even Dennis Kucinich is likely to be a better choice than 4 more years of Obama).
More to the point, can't better silk be synthetically produced on a large scale? Same question applies for other animal based textiles, such as wool, leather, fur, etc
Not as assinine as you think. There are two reasons that your career is likely to tell others something about your politics. The first is that people tend to choose careers because of the way they approach problems. The way that a person approaches problems has a significant impact on what that person's politics are. The second is that people's politics are influenced by those they work with (people are likely to gradually alter their politics to be more inline with those they work with--this is a two-way street), since the majority of people in a given profession are likely to be predisposed to a certain political philosophy those who are not are influenced in that direction.
So, it is a valid assumption that a person of a particular profession will hold similar political views to others of that profession. There are three mistakes people make with this assumption. The first is that they reach a conclusion about the political views common in a particular profession based on either a too small sample set or on an atypical sample set (say, IT professionals who work for a social services agency, where the IT professionals are surrounded day in and day out by people whose approach to problems is different than their own, and thus their political tendencies are different than the typical IT professional). The second is the failure to recognize that the type of organization one chooses to work at is as significant a factor in judging what someone's likely political opinion is as is their specific profession. The third is the failure to recognize evidence that suggests that a particular individual holds political opinions atypical for their career (likely caused by strong influences from outside of their chosen career, although other factors are possible).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that Universities are marketing it as something akin to professional certification (and many businesses are treating it as something akin to professional certification).
Thank you, you are the second person to give me the type of answer I am looking for.
Thank you, that is the type of answer I was looking for.
Several people posted about what mpg they get with a hybrid, how many of those people have actually measured their mileage by dividing the number of miles they have driven by the number of gallons they have used? Or did they just use the number given by the cars computer? I do not know how the car calculates mpg, but I do know that the numbers given by several on board readouts are not necessarily accurate.
You started out making a good point. One of the reasons that gas mileage has not improved more is because the government has mandated more safety features, which increase the curb weight of cars.
What the size of the federal basic research budget should be is a completely different question. The question under discussion is whether the government report as worded makes its case. Its case is based on the fact that the federal basic research budget is only 57% of the total money spent on basic research and in 1980 it was 70% of the total. That fact is irrelevant. You may argue that the federal government should spend more on basic research, but there is no reason why the federal government's share of the total amount of money spent on basic research should remain constant.
At no point did I argue about what the federal basic research budget should be. I argued that this report was pure propaganda. Of course, when one argues that things like the federal budget should be decided on the basis of what the money is being spent on rather than some artificial comparison to what it was in the past that makes one a "right-winger" and all of one's arguments can be dismissed.
She just presents the blue peter, it's not actually hers.
You hit the nail on the head. My thought was, "Unless we know how much the federal government is spending today on basic research versus how much it spent on basic research in 1980 (adjusted for inflation), percentages don't tell us anything." Additionally, the fact that they chose to present it as percentage of total spending on basic research suggests that in fact federal spending on basic research has increased at well above the inflation rate (just like most of the federal budget). Actually, I just read the summary of the report where it states that government funding of basic research has increased, but not by as much as the authors think it should have.
You seem to have missed my point. As the term is used by most people, capitalism is an economic system that is the opposite of a centrally planned economy. So, I still do not know what you mean by "creeping capitalism". I am guessing what you mean is "creeping fascism" since you do not seem to share the same definition of capitalism that most people use.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Iranian government was composed of Iranians.
First of all, when I said "the Iranians" I was referring to the government. I don't know if you have noticed, but the Iranian government is composed of Iranians.
Considering that the Iranian government provided significant support to the Egyptians, who exactly is going to provide the support to the Iranians who want to overthrow their current government (and considering that the Egyptians are in the process of replacing their former government with one that looks a lot like the Iranian one)?
You, also, seem to have overlooked the fact that the Iranian government is threatening to create a complete military embargo of the Straits of Hormuz. Considering the nature of the people running that government, that should not be dismissed as pure bluff.
The problem with looking for "Protestant Reformation" of Islam is that the reforms of the Protestant Reformation were based on the Christian scripture and primarily involved doing away with problems that had involved traditions that had come to override scriptural instruction (often times traditions that had originally been originated to deal with earlier problems of corruption that had themselves become corrupted). The problem with Islam is that much of the nasty stuff is written into their scripture (with very little, if any, basis in that scripture for overriding the nasty stuff).
Sorry if I gave the impression that I was talking about the average Iranian, I used Iranian to refer to what those in power in Iran have been saying since the Revolution.
However, I think that you overemphasize the distinction between the three power blocks. In order to have significant power in either the Revolutionary Guards or the "civilian" government you must be a member of, and have a power base within, the "religious authorities". Your summary implies that the three groups are competing for power, when in fact two of the three groups are subsets of the third that are used by members of the third in their jockeying for power within that third. Also, your description of the Revolutionary Guards is somewhat flawed. The Revolutionary Guard is a separate entity from the Iranian military. The Revolutionary Guard is really just muscle for the "religious authorities" (although well enough armed that it could, at least theoretically) stand off the actual military.
You really haven't been listening have you? The Iranians have been telling anyone who wants to listen why they are doing this. They have said that their goal is the subjugation of the entire world to Islamic rule, as understood by them.
And that would be a greater problem than the lack of northern sky that one might observe in Antarctica for what reason?
There is another angle that involves creeping capitalism,...
What is "creeping capitalism"? It sounds from the rest of the sentence like you are talking about the natural tendency of the powerful (in this case large corporations) to take over all of the levers of power in any centrally planned economy (fascism, socialism, communism, "crony capitialism").
That's a great idea. Why don't you start a non-profit to do that?
Or did you mean for the government to become the source for everybody's news?
The fallacy here is that newspapers are going belly up because of the Internet, readership of newspapers was dropping before the Internet came on the scene.
Yeah and look how well it respects the rights it has previously declared.
The difference being that most backup files are not accessible to the running machine except at the time the backup is made (or when a restore is in progress).
Considering that Romney is a Mormon and no Christian Fundamentalists consider Mormons to be Christian, let alone Fundamentalists and Santorum is Roman Catholic and only a slightly larger number of Christian Fundamentalists consider Catholics to be Christian and none consider them to be Fundamentalist that would be incorrect.
Most sane republicans would prefer 4 more year of Obama,
No, sane person would prefer 4 more years of Obama to any of the candidates in the field (even Dennis Kucinich is likely to be a better choice than 4 more years of Obama).
I guess that depends on your definition of "loosened".
More to the point, can't better silk be synthetically produced on a large scale? Same question applies for other animal based textiles, such as wool, leather, fur, etc
The answer to your question is "No".
Not as assinine as you think. There are two reasons that your career is likely to tell others something about your politics. The first is that people tend to choose careers because of the way they approach problems. The way that a person approaches problems has a significant impact on what that person's politics are. The second is that people's politics are influenced by those they work with (people are likely to gradually alter their politics to be more inline with those they work with--this is a two-way street), since the majority of people in a given profession are likely to be predisposed to a certain political philosophy those who are not are influenced in that direction.
So, it is a valid assumption that a person of a particular profession will hold similar political views to others of that profession. There are three mistakes people make with this assumption. The first is that they reach a conclusion about the political views common in a particular profession based on either a too small sample set or on an atypical sample set (say, IT professionals who work for a social services agency, where the IT professionals are surrounded day in and day out by people whose approach to problems is different than their own, and thus their political tendencies are different than the typical IT professional). The second is the failure to recognize that the type of organization one chooses to work at is as significant a factor in judging what someone's likely political opinion is as is their specific profession. The third is the failure to recognize evidence that suggests that a particular individual holds political opinions atypical for their career (likely caused by strong influences from outside of their chosen career, although other factors are possible).