"You should never consider dumping your problem off on sone other innocent. If you can't return the problem to the source, burning someone else shouldn't even be considered an option. That makes you worse than the people that shafted you in the first place."
And why is the vendor/shop innocent? They choose to disallow returns. They choose to stock defective merchandise. They are part of the problem.
"It's likely that by the time uranium runs out, fusion will be available. The current rough schedule is for a prototype power station in about 2040 [iter.org]. And that's not just pie-in-the-sky,..."
Ah, yes, the standard "it will be ready in a few decades" comment. We really mean it this time. We know the basic physics. There are only some engineering issues to overcome. Wait, why are you laughing?
"I don't understand why we need so many useless regulators who are usually wolves being put in charge of the hen house when the courts could easily handle this."
What exactly have the courts accomplished to date?
ZERO.
Those "useless regulators"?
A massive recall to fix at least part of the problem.
"It's going to end up being prosecuted in a court of law anyway and not solved by some magic regulation hand-waving."
It may be litigated in civil court. Prosecutions are unlikely (what law was broken?). And without those regulations, there would have been no recall and no fix.
"Nobody thinks their minor ailments should take precedence over someone's heart transplant."
Their words may say no, but their actions say yes.
"What they want is a system with enough doctors to cover everyone's needs in a reasonable time frame."
Without paying for it. There is a reason that ER waits are long. There is a reason that primary care is not popular.
And they know that "reasonable" means one thing to the patient, and something else to a bureaucrat who doesn't know you and never will. Thus they fear a government monopoly's attempts at cost control will mean fewer doctors available to treat them quickly."
We already have that. Ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid? Yet when people suggest changes to this "socialist" plan, all hell breaks loose. In any case, could you explain how an insurance bureaucrat who makes money screwing me is better than an government bureaucrat that is funded by taxdollars? Didn't think so.
"While I am sure the US system is given to excess and abuse, there is a huge difference in the quality of health care."
And you would be wrong. I'm sure you BELIEVE there is a quality difference. The patient is not always right.
"I don't know about you, but when it comes to my kid's eyesight, "wait and see" is not good enough."
And the medical basis for this is what? I assume you went to a doctor for their advice. You might consider following it.
"They let several obviously non emergencies go in front of me, so I guess it's first-come-first-served."
And the medical basis for this is what? You had a non emergency case. You wait. Just like in the US.
"They sent us to several different hospitals and then made us come back after they consulted with some doctors in the US."
I don't see the problem here. You refused the care and it cost you time and effort. The saw would have worked. So they spent additional time verifying your preferred method of treatment and you are complaining?
As to your wisdom teeth example, that is pretty dependent on the person and condition.
The US health system is great at delivering expensive services. Other systems are better at delivering health care. Every complaint I've seen directed at the other systems, I have experienced with the US system. If I am going to get all of the downsides, I want all of the upsides.
"It used to be possible for a young man to graduate high school, get a good unionized job in manufacturing, and make enough money to buy a house, a car, and for his wife to to stay home with the kids or work part time."
It is still possible. The jobs may not be in manufacturing but they are still out there.
"Whereas now it's more common for both parents to work 40+ hours a week for the same or lesser lifestyle."
Sorry, but in many cases both parents work because they want or expect a HIGHER standard of living. They want more than one car, a big house, the toys, etc. If my parents had lived like the average family of today, one income would not have been sufficient either.
"You can't fire people for wrongdoing without evidence, even if the law permits dismissal for no reason. You'd get hit with a lawsuit."
Then don't fire them for cause. Lay them off and allow them to collect UI. The chance of getting sued is low because it costs money (even if a lawyer takes the case on contingency).
I might also suggest firing the supervisors. If you need a time clock to determine/prove your employees aren't on site they aren't their job either.
"Every HR person knows that in order to safely fire a troublemaker you need to gather plenty of evidence and give him plenty of warnings."
Any HR person that holds such an opinion is a moron. And should not be employed. There is no safe way to fire someone. There is no way to prevent a lawsuit. If the person you fire is the litigious type, you will be sued regardless of precautions.
"We're talking about part-time work-study jobs for college students - don't you think that biometric timeclocks are a little overkill?"
Not really. They needed some kind of timeclock system to track hours worked. So I assume they chose one that best met their needs. It seems to require no paper, no codes or tokens to lose and it is hard to punch in for a friend. In short, it's easy to administer for the people in charge.
"If you forgot to clock in/out, you didn't get paid for that shift."
Simple, effective and illegal. If an employee complains and can prove they worked the employer will be liable for back wages and penalties. This can occur years after the fact.
If an employee has problems clocking in and out, they still need to be paid for time worked and disciplined if it is a problem. Withholding wages is really stupid.
"If a private business hires bad employees and operates inefficiently it goes out of business...it usually takes a very protracted period of bad performance for governments to be finally shown the door."
So exactly what is the key difference? You just stated that both can go out of business, eventually. And don't forget that all of the crappy employees in business also happen to run the government. They are called citizens and we can't fire them.
"Also, we can choose not to patronize bad businesses, but taxes are not optional."
Actually you don't have to pay taxes. There may be negative consequences but the same could be said for avoiding some very large companies.
"Hopefully when he's kicked out of office shortly they'll go back to it."
Which would be incredibly stupid. Yucca mountain is a very poor site for a storage facility. It was chosen for political reasons (Nevada had the least political clout). Rather fitting it should be eliminated for the same.
The best place (geological and technical) for a long term storage site would be the stable shield area of the continent. Wisconsin or Michigan, for instance. Not likely to happen for political reasons.
"If you are buying a brand new copy of the OS... then why would you buy an old version that is out of support, or about to be out of support?"
And if you buy an OEM copy, you don't get any support. Not that you get any meaningful support with a retail copy. Sure you get patches but then the newer OS often needs them....
There are many reasons for a person to buy a new OS. Support really isn't a good reason.
Re:And the zombification of our children continues
on
The Wi-Fi On the Bus
·
· Score: 1
"And that pretty much leaves it to the judge unless those terms are defined.
I don't think it's unreasonable to leave a 12 year old alone for 3 or 4 hours after school if it's a responsible kid."
The problem is that many people now think that is not responsible. Those people may include judges. If you are ever in front of a judge it is also likely that something rare but bad has happened and CPS is not on your side. Makes for great media ratings. So people get paranoid.
"And losing an experienced worker is not only a humanly tragic thing, it's also not cost efficient to waste people that you have to train, not to mention that you have to cover the injury related costs. Take all that together and it's very much in the interest of a company to keep its workers healthy and able to continue working."
In theory, yes. In reality, no. Often it depends on whether the cost (money or otherwise) can be externalized. It's often easier to do nothing than save money. I've seen it many times.
If you think running the country like a company will get you more sensible laws, you obviously haven't worked for many large companies....
"It forces the responsibility for preventing cheating down to the students, many of whom have now power to change the behavior of others."
Really? If the most common way of cheating is copying another students work, I'd say other students are mostly responsible for the problem. This also provides an excellent way for a student to say no to peer pressure. It also provides punishment when cheating occurs but cannot be traced to a single person (identical papers, no one admits to copying).
"If I were in that class I would summarily drop and file a complaint with the dean."
Good luck with that. Don't like the syllabus, don't take the class. As long as it doesn't violate policy and is written in the syllabus, a professor can pretty much do as they like. And complaining about a policy designed to enforce the honor code isn't going to win you much sympathy. And might get you some unwanted attention.
"They are cheating because they want a degree to get a job to get paid, without actually doing real work."
It also works. Every place I've worked there have been the slackers, the cheaters, etc. They exist because they are tolerated by management or are management.
"Not to seem like a pessimist, but students now are lazy, not strained."
Students have always been lazy. It's just easier than ever to be so.
"But, when a _project_ contains an explicit requirement for solo work, it's (supposed to be) because the instructor has a purpose - and how often do prof.s explain to their classes their summative/formative intent? These intentions may be opaque to the student."
And how do you define solo? It's pretty obvious that you can't use another student. But how about another book? The internet? At the root of the problem is communication-you know what you mean but do the students? As someone who has been on both sides, I find it amazing how an obvious question or statement becomes very unclear when looked at from a different perspective.
"In reality, most profs are pretty savvy about how they work (even if you don't see it) and are using a mix of summative and formative goals in their grading and assignments."
I would have to disagree. If you replace "most" with "many", I would agree. I would believe that most have a very good idea of what works and doesn't with regards to assignments and tests. As many haven't changed for decades, they should. Their (and their students) grasp on the "real world" depends entirely on having worked in industry recently or regularly dealt with it.
"In a few of my classes the teacher provided a private method for group members to communicate to the teacher who the good and bad group members were."
Yes. The good teachers have each member of the group fill out evaluation forms about who did what, problems, praises, etc. Funny that I never really needed to fill out those forms.
I suspect the bad ones just use groups so they have to do less work while pretending that they are teaching life lessons. These always needed feedback but there was never a mechanism. Which seems to be another life lesson. Pity.
"Presumably peer pressure or some fear of potential guilt is supposed to act as a deterrent, but I don't see that. It's not an effective motivation for someone who is likely to cheat."
I think it is a great idea. First, it only happens if someone is actually CAUGHT. Second, it reduces the ability of the cheater to cheat (allowing your assignment to be copyed is now no longer victimless, so the supply is reduced). Third, it promotes a culture of personal responsibility and peer pressure to do the right thing. It stops casual cheating. Finally, it makes the grades more meaningful and promotes learning.
Defining cheating is always tricky. In my experience, most students don't consider sharing their work to be cheating. If you say work together they hear copying is okay. You really have to be precise. If you define cheating as receiving outside help (as the article did), then what exactly is outside help? A tutor? A study group? The professor? The textbook? I know it when I see it is not a useful definition for a student who has been allowed to work in groups and copy work for most of his/her academic career.
"I go to a local community college, and I know that at the very least academic dishonest will result in an F for the class. On the first day of class each professor makes this clear."
I'm sure they do. It's also very unlikely. What they say they will do and what they can actually do are two very different things.
"Such a student will NEVER pass an exam in my class, especially if it's a case of plagiarism."
You might have a hard time with that in the US at some Universities.
As a TA at a very large University in Ohio I reported a case of obvious cheating during an exam to the professor. This was observed by another TA. Nothing was done. Luckily, the student did poorly anyway.
As a lecturer for this same University system, I later learned that you are NOT allowed to fail or penalize (by policy) a student for cheating without going through the student conduct committee (or equivalent). So of course it is rarely done-too much trouble. After all, if bringing in money is more important than teaching for tenure, why should professors care if anyone learns anything?
"When everyone can have an autofarm and manufacturing fabricator, there really wouldn't be room for a traditional economy."
Really? Where exactly would the resources come from? The plans? The expertise?
You might be able to build a house or a car but you still need the materials and the plans and the machine. And I suspect that those will cost money. Which means that you will need a job.
"And in most of them, there is a money changer and there are no restrictions for foreigners. But this is the first time I'm seeing other way around. Strange land indeed!"
That actually is actually the norm for many "developing" countries. They want currency (wealth) to flow into the country but not out. Often a sign of an unstable local currency.
Slashdot Mirror
"You should never consider dumping your problem off on sone other innocent. If you can't return the problem to the source, burning someone else shouldn't even be considered an option. That makes you worse than the people that shafted you in the first place."
And why is the vendor/shop innocent? They choose to disallow returns. They choose to stock defective merchandise. They are part of the problem.
"It's likely that by the time uranium runs out, fusion will be available. The current rough schedule is for a prototype power station in about 2040 [iter.org]. And that's not just pie-in-the-sky,..."
Ah, yes, the standard "it will be ready in a few decades" comment. We really mean it this time. We know the basic physics. There are only some engineering issues to overcome. Wait, why are you laughing?
Fusion, energy of the future. And always will be.
"I don't understand why we need so many useless regulators who are usually wolves being put in charge of the hen house when the courts could easily handle this."
What exactly have the courts accomplished to date?
ZERO.
Those "useless regulators"?
A massive recall to fix at least part of the problem.
"It's going to end up being prosecuted in a court of law anyway and not solved by some magic regulation hand-waving."
It may be litigated in civil court. Prosecutions are unlikely (what law was broken?). And without those regulations, there would have been no recall and no fix.
"Nobody thinks their minor ailments should take precedence over someone's heart transplant."
Their words may say no, but their actions say yes.
"What they want is a system with enough doctors to cover everyone's needs in a reasonable time frame."
Without paying for it. There is a reason that ER waits are long. There is a reason that primary care is not popular.
And they know that "reasonable" means one thing to the patient, and something else to a bureaucrat who doesn't know you and never will. Thus they fear a government monopoly's attempts at cost control will mean fewer doctors available to treat them quickly."
We already have that. Ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid? Yet when people suggest changes to this "socialist" plan, all hell breaks loose. In any case, could you explain how an insurance bureaucrat who makes money screwing me is better than an government bureaucrat that is funded by taxdollars? Didn't think so.
"While I am sure the US system is given to excess and abuse, there is a huge difference in the quality of health care."
And you would be wrong. I'm sure you BELIEVE there is a quality difference. The patient is not always right.
"I don't know about you, but when it comes to my kid's eyesight, "wait and see" is not good enough."
And the medical basis for this is what? I assume you went to a doctor for their advice. You might consider following it.
"They let several obviously non emergencies go in front of me, so I guess it's first-come-first-served."
And the medical basis for this is what? You had a non emergency case. You wait. Just like in the US.
"They sent us to several different hospitals and then made us come back after they consulted with some doctors in the US."
I don't see the problem here. You refused the care and it cost you time and effort. The saw would have worked. So they spent additional time verifying your preferred method of treatment and you are complaining?
As to your wisdom teeth example, that is pretty dependent on the person and condition.
The US health system is great at delivering expensive services. Other systems are better at delivering health care. Every complaint I've seen directed at the other systems, I have experienced with the US system. If I am going to get all of the downsides, I want all of the upsides.
"It used to be possible for a young man to graduate high school, get a good unionized job in manufacturing, and make enough money to buy a house, a car, and for his wife to to stay home with the kids or work part time."
It is still possible. The jobs may not be in manufacturing but they are still out there.
"Whereas now it's more common for both parents to work 40+ hours a week for the same or lesser lifestyle."
Sorry, but in many cases both parents work because they want or expect a HIGHER standard of living. They want more than one car, a big house, the toys, etc. If my parents had lived like the average family of today, one income would not have been sufficient either.
"You can't fire people for wrongdoing without evidence, even if the law permits dismissal for no reason. You'd get hit with a lawsuit."
Then don't fire them for cause. Lay them off and allow them to collect UI. The chance of getting sued is low because it costs money (even if a lawyer takes the case on contingency).
I might also suggest firing the supervisors. If you need a time clock to determine/prove your employees aren't on site they aren't their job either.
"Every HR person knows that in order to safely fire a troublemaker you need to gather plenty of evidence and give him plenty of warnings."
Any HR person that holds such an opinion is a moron. And should not be employed. There is no safe way to fire someone. There is no way to prevent a lawsuit. If the person you fire is the litigious type, you will be sued regardless of precautions.
"We're talking about part-time work-study jobs for college students - don't you think that biometric timeclocks are a little overkill?"
Not really. They needed some kind of timeclock system to track hours worked. So I assume they chose one that best met their needs. It seems to require no paper, no codes or tokens to lose and it is hard to punch in for a friend. In short, it's easy to administer for the people in charge.
"If you forgot to clock in/out, you didn't get paid for that shift."
Simple, effective and illegal. If an employee complains and can prove they worked the employer will be liable for back wages and penalties. This can occur years after the fact.
If an employee has problems clocking in and out, they still need to be paid for time worked and disciplined if it is a problem. Withholding wages is really stupid.
"If a private business hires bad employees and operates inefficiently it goes out of business...it usually takes a very protracted period of bad performance for governments to be finally shown the door."
So exactly what is the key difference? You just stated that both can go out of business, eventually. And don't forget that all of the crappy employees in business also happen to run the government. They are called citizens and we can't fire them.
"Also, we can choose not to patronize bad businesses, but taxes are not optional."
Actually you don't have to pay taxes. There may be negative consequences but the same could be said for avoiding some very large companies.
"Hopefully when he's kicked out of office shortly they'll go back to it."
Which would be incredibly stupid. Yucca mountain is a very poor site for a storage facility. It was chosen for political reasons (Nevada had the least political clout). Rather fitting it should be eliminated for the same.
The best place (geological and technical) for a long term storage site would be the stable shield area of the continent. Wisconsin or Michigan, for instance. Not likely to happen for political reasons.
It's not the red tape. It's the morons building the things.
They are still paying for four of the five nuclear power plants that were never finished in Washington state (started in 1971 by WPPSS, aka whoops).
"If you are buying a brand new copy of the OS... then why would you buy an old version that is out of support, or about to be out of support?"
And if you buy an OEM copy, you don't get any support. Not that you get any meaningful support with a retail copy. Sure you get patches but then the newer OS often needs them....
There are many reasons for a person to buy a new OS. Support really isn't a good reason.
"And that pretty much leaves it to the judge unless those terms are defined.
I don't think it's unreasonable to leave a 12 year old alone for 3 or 4 hours after school if it's a responsible kid."
The problem is that many people now think that is not responsible. Those people may include judges. If you are ever in front of a judge it is also likely that something rare but bad has happened and CPS is not on your side. Makes for great media ratings. So people get paranoid.
"And losing an experienced worker is not only a humanly tragic thing, it's also not cost efficient to waste people that you have to train, not to mention that you have to cover the injury related costs. Take all that together and it's very much in the interest of a company to keep its workers healthy and able to continue working."
In theory, yes. In reality, no. Often it depends on whether the cost (money or otherwise) can be externalized. It's often easier to do nothing than save money. I've seen it many times.
If you think running the country like a company will get you more sensible laws, you obviously haven't worked for many large companies....
"It forces the responsibility for preventing cheating down to the students, many of whom have now power to change the behavior of others."
Really? If the most common way of cheating is copying another students work, I'd say other students are mostly responsible for the problem. This also provides an excellent way for a student to say no to peer pressure. It also provides punishment when cheating occurs but cannot be traced to a single person (identical papers, no one admits to copying).
"If I were in that class I would summarily drop and file a complaint with the dean."
Good luck with that. Don't like the syllabus, don't take the class. As long as it doesn't violate policy and is written in the syllabus, a professor can pretty much do as they like. And complaining about a policy designed to enforce the honor code isn't going to win you much sympathy. And might get you some unwanted attention.
"They are cheating because they want a degree to get a job to get paid, without actually doing real work."
It also works. Every place I've worked there have been the slackers, the cheaters, etc. They exist because they are tolerated by management or are management.
"Not to seem like a pessimist, but students now are lazy, not strained."
Students have always been lazy. It's just easier than ever to be so.
"But, when a _project_ contains an explicit requirement for solo work, it's (supposed to be) because the instructor has a purpose - and how often do prof.s explain to their classes their summative/formative intent? These intentions may be opaque to the student."
And how do you define solo? It's pretty obvious that you can't use another student. But how about another book? The internet? At the root of the problem is communication-you know what you mean but do the students? As someone who has been on both sides, I find it amazing how an obvious question or statement becomes very unclear when looked at from a different perspective.
"In reality, most profs are pretty savvy about how they work (even if you don't see it) and are using a mix of summative and formative goals in their grading and assignments."
I would have to disagree. If you replace "most" with "many", I would agree. I would believe that most have a very good idea of what works and doesn't with regards to assignments and tests. As many haven't changed for decades, they should. Their (and their students) grasp on the "real world" depends entirely on having worked in industry recently or regularly dealt with it.
"In a few of my classes the teacher provided a private method for group members to communicate to the teacher who the good and bad group members were."
Yes. The good teachers have each member of the group fill out evaluation forms about who did what, problems, praises, etc. Funny that I never really needed to fill out those forms.
I suspect the bad ones just use groups so they have to do less work while pretending that they are teaching life lessons. These always needed feedback but there was never a mechanism. Which seems to be another life lesson. Pity.
"Presumably peer pressure or some fear of potential guilt is supposed to act as a deterrent, but I don't see that. It's not an effective motivation for someone who is likely to cheat."
I think it is a great idea. First, it only happens if someone is actually CAUGHT. Second, it reduces the ability of the cheater to cheat (allowing your assignment to be copyed is now no longer victimless, so the supply is reduced). Third, it promotes a culture of personal responsibility and peer pressure to do the right thing. It stops casual cheating. Finally, it makes the grades more meaningful and promotes learning.
Defining cheating is always tricky. In my experience, most students don't consider sharing their work to be cheating. If you say work together they hear copying is okay. You really have to be precise. If you define cheating as receiving outside help (as the article did), then what exactly is outside help? A tutor? A study group? The professor? The textbook? I know it when I see it is not a useful definition for a student who has been allowed to work in groups and copy work for most of his/her academic career.
"I go to a local community college, and I know that at the very least academic dishonest will result in an F for the class. On the first day of class each professor makes this clear."
I'm sure they do. It's also very unlikely. What they say they will do and what they can actually do are two very different things.
"Such a student will NEVER pass an exam in my class, especially if it's a case of plagiarism."
You might have a hard time with that in the US at some Universities.
As a TA at a very large University in Ohio I reported a case of obvious cheating during an exam to the professor. This was observed by another TA. Nothing was done. Luckily, the student did poorly anyway.
As a lecturer for this same University system, I later learned that you are NOT allowed to fail or penalize (by policy) a student for cheating without going through the student conduct committee (or equivalent). So of course it is rarely done-too much trouble. After all, if bringing in money is more important than teaching for tenure, why should professors care if anyone learns anything?
"When everyone can have an autofarm and manufacturing fabricator, there really wouldn't be room for a traditional economy."
Really? Where exactly would the resources come from? The plans? The expertise?
You might be able to build a house or a car but you still need the materials and the plans and the machine. And I suspect that those will cost money. Which means that you will need a job.
"And where did WE get it from then?"
Maybe we don't have free will. The whole nature vs nurture issue. We certainly have less free will than we think we do.
That issue might take even longer to solve than AI :)
"And in most of them, there is a money changer and there are no restrictions for foreigners. But this is the first time I'm seeing other way around. Strange land indeed!"
That actually is actually the norm for many "developing" countries. They want currency (wealth) to flow into the country but not out. Often a sign of an unstable local currency.