You don't need to be a career academic/intellectual to gain a lot from a college education.
Please point out where I said this was the case. In fact, I'm NOT a career academic; I'm in IT doing UX design and systems training. None of this came directly from my undergraduate music history degree, just as my lawyer friend's JD didn't come as a result of his marketing degree.
Reread my original posting and then realize how a little college might have helped you with reading comprehension and critical thought. And if you've already been to college, consider grad school to continue your clearly lacking education.
Like so much in life, you'll get out of college what you put into it. If you expect your professors to push intellectual rigor upon you, you'll be disappointed.
But if you demand intellectual rigor from yourself, you'll experience the fruits of it.
Yes, that means that you can do the same thing outside of school. But it's easier to surround yourself with like-minded people and expert thinkers in a university setting.
I went to big state school, and it didn't make me more intellectual.
Nothing will make an intellectually non-curious person into an intellectual. In a perfect world, intellectuals would go to college, and everyone else would just go to trade school, or learn on their own (or just be garbage men, which is fine).
Instead, college is a business, and to maximize profits they need to attract everyone they can. Unfortunately, this means a lot of people who have no business going to college -- who will neither gain anything from their time there, nor contribute to the intellectual pool of the community (or the world in general) -- wind up drinking their way through an extra 4 years of high school.
Rather than pushing everyone to go to college -- which leads us to the broken system we have -- I'd rather we encourage more people NOT to go to college. Leave that for the thinkers and those who want to better themselves. As someone who's worked at a public university for 10 years, I estimate that these people make up less than 20% of the student body.
I wasn't disputing that the driving tests are stupidly easy -- that's a given. GP thinks that only a fool would ride a motorcycle, and that they are to blame for any accident they may be involved in.
I find that retarded because it can be (and is!) taken to dumb extremes: *Anyone who drives over 50 mph DESERVES to have an accident! *Anyone who drives a compact car DESERVES to get crushed by one of these SUVs! *Anyone who rides a bicycle or walks DESERVES to get hit! *Anyone who doesn't think and act JUST LIKE ME is a Darwin Award-winner waiting to happen!!!!11!
Spoken like a true American, living your life from safety-tested cradle to carefully scrubbed and disinfected coffin, and in between using gallons of hand sanitizer and standing in line with your shoes off at the airport.
Isn't it shameful living your life in fear? Must personal safety be the most important consideration at all times? Don't you ever get bored?
As the AC above pointed out, you're not correcting anyone. You've parroted a grammatical "rule" that most 5th graders know isn't true, and then recast the sentence to mean something totally different.
Maybe it's time to take a break from the internet and do some real reading.
And don't you think those people are considerably more valuable to Motorola than someone who can't tell an Android phone from an iPhone? Of course they are.
Additionally, the geeks are the only ones with any brand loyalty, so it pays not to piss them off. I'll happily stick with Motorola when my Droid dies, assuming they haven't pissed my off. My gf, on the other hand, doesn't even know which company built her EVO.
"Cost over time of construction" is basically meaningless. By that rationale, no factories should EVER be built, because the construction should be seen as an end cost rather than an investment in a product.
I would venture to say that Hoover Dam cost a hell of a lot more per home when it was built. That one turned out to be a pretty good investment, though.
(btw, my power bill in the summer in Vegas is about $300.)
No interface on earth is instantly usable for people who don't have a baseline competency in similar interfaces.
My great grandmother -- born in 1911 -- never learned to drive a car in her life. Is it because car interfaces are poorly designed, or because she just didn't care enough to bother learning? Considering millions of people her age had no problem with it, I'd argue the latter.
Apple abandoned their previously beloved Firewire right after I purchased several peripheral that used it. For me, that's reason enough not to trust them with Thunderbolt.
There is no relation between Darwinism and religion, except in the minds of those Christians who wish to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Just ask the Pope.
Atheism is a "religion" as much as religions are religions
The (obvious) problem with this is that there are about 100 atheists in the world who actually give a shit enough about atheism or religion to proselytize it, compared to millions of god-lovers who won't just leave the rest of us alone.
If you mean that they'll put up with any indignity from their government as long as you don't threaten to take away their porn, then I agree with you -- Turks are just like us. (Fortunately for our government, they haven't threatened our porn in some time.)
If "credit protection" worked like you seem to think it does, none of us would need it because we'd already be protected. In fact, "credit protection" is a big, time consuming pain in the ass that only works (if it works at all) for a limited time and in limited circumstances.
Imagine that there are 2 car companies left on the planet: Ford and Ferrari. The government gives those car companies the right to decide where you are allowed to drive. But Ford has decided that it doesn't want you to be allowed to go to the public library, because the library holds beliefs that differ from Ford's.
At that point, is Ford exercising monopoly power? By your logic, no, because people who want to go to the library can just as easily go out and buy a Ferrari. By any rational person's logic, Ford is abusing an effective monopoly. But it gets worse (for you) from a legal perspective...
A monopoly occurs when a company totally dominates an economic market. Not a product niche; an economic market. In the above scenario, Ford and Ferrari do not exist in the same economic market, just as Comcast and a T1 line do not exist in the same economic market. But because Ford and Ferrari are the only companies offering automobiles in their respective economic market (Ford in the $20,000 market, and Ferrari in the $200,000 market), they are BOTH viewed as monopolies by any legal body.
Because neither will last forever. We could sit around until it's gone and then react to the catastrophe that follows (like we do with bridges and levies and education) or we could try some new things at relatively minimal cost in the meantime.
(Some guy in 1960: "Why build this Internet thing when we already have phones and telegraphs and cans with string? We already have plenty of ways to communicate, why do we need one more?")
I for one found SciFi way more watchable when it was MOSTLY Buck Rogers re-runs. This list has some of my all-time favorite shows on it. The list above it (currently showing on ScyFy) has none (well, except Friday the 13th: The Series).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to be a career academic/intellectual to gain a lot from a college education.
Please point out where I said this was the case. In fact, I'm NOT a career academic; I'm in IT doing UX design and systems training. None of this came directly from my undergraduate music history degree, just as my lawyer friend's JD didn't come as a result of his marketing degree.
Reread my original posting and then realize how a little college might have helped you with reading comprehension and critical thought. And if you've already been to college, consider grad school to continue your clearly lacking education.
RTFA - that wouldn't help with anonymity.
Like so much in life, you'll get out of college what you put into it. If you expect your professors to push intellectual rigor upon you, you'll be disappointed.
But if you demand intellectual rigor from yourself, you'll experience the fruits of it.
Yes, that means that you can do the same thing outside of school. But it's easier to surround yourself with like-minded people and expert thinkers in a university setting.
I went to big state school, and it didn't make me more intellectual.
Nothing will make an intellectually non-curious person into an intellectual. In a perfect world, intellectuals would go to college, and everyone else would just go to trade school, or learn on their own (or just be garbage men, which is fine).
Instead, college is a business, and to maximize profits they need to attract everyone they can. Unfortunately, this means a lot of people who have no business going to college -- who will neither gain anything from their time there, nor contribute to the intellectual pool of the community (or the world in general) -- wind up drinking their way through an extra 4 years of high school.
Rather than pushing everyone to go to college -- which leads us to the broken system we have -- I'd rather we encourage more people NOT to go to college. Leave that for the thinkers and those who want to better themselves. As someone who's worked at a public university for 10 years, I estimate that these people make up less than 20% of the student body.
I wasn't disputing that the driving tests are stupidly easy -- that's a given. GP thinks that only a fool would ride a motorcycle, and that they are to blame for any accident they may be involved in.
I find that retarded because it can be (and is!) taken to dumb extremes:
*Anyone who drives over 50 mph DESERVES to have an accident!
*Anyone who drives a compact car DESERVES to get crushed by one of these SUVs!
*Anyone who rides a bicycle or walks DESERVES to get hit!
*Anyone who doesn't think and act JUST LIKE ME is a Darwin Award-winner waiting to happen!!!!11!
This isn't exactly "not 100% foolproof" -- it can be defeated by a piece of tape.
But keep cheerleading those who want to tell you when and how to use your devices. Corporations love people like you.
Spoken like a true American, living your life from safety-tested cradle to carefully scrubbed and disinfected coffin, and in between using gallons of hand sanitizer and standing in line with your shoes off at the airport.
Isn't it shameful living your life in fear? Must personal safety be the most important consideration at all times? Don't you ever get bored?
As the AC above pointed out, you're not correcting anyone. You've parroted a grammatical "rule" that most 5th graders know isn't true, and then recast the sentence to mean something totally different.
Maybe it's time to take a break from the internet and do some real reading.
And don't you think those people are considerably more valuable to Motorola than someone who can't tell an Android phone from an iPhone? Of course they are.
Additionally, the geeks are the only ones with any brand loyalty, so it pays not to piss them off. I'll happily stick with Motorola when my Droid dies, assuming they haven't pissed my off. My gf, on the other hand, doesn't even know which company built her EVO.
"Cost over time of construction" is basically meaningless. By that rationale, no factories should EVER be built, because the construction should be seen as an end cost rather than an investment in a product.
I would venture to say that Hoover Dam cost a hell of a lot more per home when it was built. That one turned out to be a pretty good investment, though.
(btw, my power bill in the summer in Vegas is about $300.)
No interface on earth is instantly usable for people who don't have a baseline competency in similar interfaces.
My great grandmother -- born in 1911 -- never learned to drive a car in her life. Is it because car interfaces are poorly designed, or because she just didn't care enough to bother learning? Considering millions of people her age had no problem with it, I'd argue the latter.
Apple abandoned their previously beloved Firewire right after I purchased several peripheral that used it. For me, that's reason enough not to trust them with Thunderbolt.
I'll just stick with USB.
Business + "Social media" = Wall Street boner. In 5 years it'll be Webvan.
There is no relation between Darwinism and religion, except in the minds of those Christians who wish to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Just ask the Pope.
Avant? Antivir? If you don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best to say nothing at all.
Atheism is a "religion" as much as religions are religions
The (obvious) problem with this is that there are about 100 atheists in the world who actually give a shit enough about atheism or religion to proselytize it, compared to millions of god-lovers who won't just leave the rest of us alone.
If you mean that they'll put up with any indignity from their government as long as you don't threaten to take away their porn, then I agree with you -- Turks are just like us. (Fortunately for our government, they haven't threatened our porn in some time.)
And yet you make no effort to refute it. Thanks.
If "credit protection" worked like you seem to think it does, none of us would need it because we'd already be protected. In fact, "credit protection" is a big, time consuming pain in the ass that only works (if it works at all) for a limited time and in limited circumstances.
But in this case the point is moot, since Sony isn't actually offering you anything at all.
Car analogy fail. Here's a better one:
Imagine that there are 2 car companies left on the planet: Ford and Ferrari. The government gives those car companies the right to decide where you are allowed to drive. But Ford has decided that it doesn't want you to be allowed to go to the public library, because the library holds beliefs that differ from Ford's.
At that point, is Ford exercising monopoly power? By your logic, no, because people who want to go to the library can just as easily go out and buy a Ferrari. By any rational person's logic, Ford is abusing an effective monopoly. But it gets worse (for you) from a legal perspective...
A monopoly occurs when a company totally dominates an economic market. Not a product niche; an economic market. In the above scenario, Ford and Ferrari do not exist in the same economic market, just as Comcast and a T1 line do not exist in the same economic market. But because Ford and Ferrari are the only companies offering automobiles in their respective economic market (Ford in the $20,000 market, and Ferrari in the $200,000 market), they are BOTH viewed as monopolies by any legal body.
Get it now?
Because neither will last forever. We could sit around until it's gone and then react to the catastrophe that follows (like we do with bridges and levies and education) or we could try some new things at relatively minimal cost in the meantime.
(Some guy in 1960: "Why build this Internet thing when we already have phones and telegraphs and cans with string? We already have plenty of ways to communicate, why do we need one more?")
Yet another government-funded dead end.
Like the Internet? And water treatment plants?
I for one found SciFi way more watchable when it was MOSTLY Buck Rogers re-runs. This list has some of my all-time favorite shows on it. The list above it (currently showing on ScyFy) has none (well, except Friday the 13th: The Series).
Money is just the lubricant that keeps the gears of the economy running smoothly.
I would argue that recent history has shown us that money can also be the goop destroying the whole machine.