Before this discussion turns into the typical "I hate the US" and "I hate Bush" ignorant ranting, let me remind you "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberals that it was your boy, Clinton, who had the ultimate push in this.
I'm a liberal. I'm even a "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberal, if you like. As long as it doesn't offend me. I don't give a damn if it offends you.
Clinton was never my boy. Clinton was never a liberal. No liberal ever described him as liberal, that was the creation of people who were too ignorant to look up the term, or to even ask a liberal what it meant. Clinton was pro-NAFTA, kicked thousands of poor people off of the welfare rolls, and fought (and won the fight against) medical marijuana. His proposed health-care reforms were all backed by large health-care companies.
Hey, he may not have been an idiot like your boy Bush, but just because someone is very smart does not make them a liberal.
Illegal? Umm... no. You may argue that it should be. Of course, the mail order places are technically not buying a degree. The Universal Life Church will give you a Ph.D. in divinity, but you have to pass a written final. The "study guide" has the answers to the questions, and the exam is NOT proctored.
Stupid? Hmm. I think so. But if you are the type of person who is just going to college so you can "get a degree" without worrying about learning, wouldn't the smart thing be to just buy the degree? Saves you money, you have your degree, and you can go on with your life?
I don't have a lot of respect for those who go to college and have no desire to learn, but those people exist, and it seems to me that the mail-order degree would be the efficient way to go.
Let's follow along. ONE: For those who don't know AP essays are graded on how many words/phrases form a list were included in the essay.
User replies to poster, pointing out that his statement is a lie for AP English.
TWO: I never took AP English, but that's how all the other AP tests work.
User replies to poster, pointing out that his statement is a lie for AP Calculus, including the parts where students have to write paragraphs of explanation.
THREE: I was referring to Chemistry and US Hist. I think all histories and sciences are the same.
You didn't say "U.S. History" and "Chemistry", you implied, and then stated "All". I think you don't know what you are talking about. From your previous utterances, I don't think you have much credibility on Chemistry (are there essay questions in chem?) and U.S. History either.
Please cite your sources, as you have lost the burden of proof.
I hate to break it to you, but most Profs would rather be working on their own research, getting grants, and publishing
This is crap. A common stereotype, but crap. It IS probably a valid generalization for major research institutions. But students knew that when they signed up. If the primary mission of their University is research, then they shouldn't be surprised that their profs are primarily interested in research. (That's not a bad thing, by the way. They should be in their proffy's office during office hours, pumping his/her brain about what they are doing, and taking full advantage of what research universities have to offer)
But not all universities in the United States are primarily research institutions. Some of them have teaching as their primary mission, and the story will be very different at these places. And it isn't an either / or; there is a huge continuum, with Universities everywhere along the dial.
"I never took AP English, but that's how all the other AP tests work"
Where are you getting your information? I grade AP calculus for the college board, and there are "essay" questions. We don't check spelling and grammar, but we do read EVERY paper, and we read for correct mathematics, presented correctly. We do not have a magic list of words we look for. And we are often "back read" by experienced (over 7 years) graders who come up to us if the disagree with our grade in order to discuss our reasoning for giving a number to a particular paper.
(There are also meta back readers)
I usually am not in the position of defending large corporations, but I have to say that the College Board does it right. They have a system for grading millions of papers fairly, and your criticism is ill-informed and off base.
To get a degree. Its not about the classes, its about getting points and getting the degree. If I wanted to learn I could do that on my own.
Then learn on your own. If you want to be efficient, just buy your degree. You can get one, mail order, from many places, at a fraction of the cost of four years tuition and living expenses.
Put your money where your mouth is. You want the degree? Drop out and buy one. Now learn on your own (if you want to learn, of course) and go try to be productive. Let me know how it works out for you in five years, when you are getting my fries ready.
. Some people just live too far away from school, sometimes they dont have cars, other times they just overslept
Then they shouldn't be in college, if they can't get to class. The order should be:
(1) Get your shit together (2) Go to college
The "quality of your work" argument is fine, but you are assuming that "work" refers just to the stuff you turn in. And for many classes that is true, but not all of them. Sometimes "work" includes things you do in class. Participating.
Your posting reeks of a certain attitude I saw when I was an engineer. People who just want to read their textbook, submit their work, get a grade, have a place in most organizations. They make good peons, generating documents for the highly-paid people to present to even more highly-paid people. That is, until their knowlege gets out of date (hint: It takes over a year for new knowledge to get into the textbooks, if it ever does) and then they are easy to lay off, because they don't have the skills to notice its coming.
I know you were just being a smartass with that paragraph, but I have to say, it was wonderfully amusing. "If I have not typed 500 words, this paragraph is not my penultimate, nor was my last. To assert otherwise is prudent, but lacking in elegance." You should try to write a "post-modern novel" and see if Salon will give it a good review.
Most of the users in my environment simply write all their passwords on a piece of paper and stick them to their computer.
Problem solved!
You laugh, but in certain contexts, that is the easiest way to go, and not that bad, security-wise.
For example, I post on slashdot. I need a password, so pranky kids don't post under my name, saying rude things. Fine. Now let's say I wrote the password on a piece of paper, taped to my monitor.
Who sees my monitor? The custodian. I know Bernadette - she is a nice lady and isn't going to hack my slashdot account. My colleagues? They haven't the slightest interest in doing such a thing, nor do they have the time.
There are also low-stakes passwords. If my net-flix password got out, you all could ADD AND DELETE MOVIES FROM MY QUEUE! Oh the horror! If someone wanted my net-flix password, they could break into my office and find it in a.txt file on my computer desktop. But once I noticed my queue had been changed, I would alter the password.
Obviously, I am careful with my bank password, etc. But otherwise, I don't see why it's so bad to have low-security when high-security is unwarrented.
That is such a mind-bogglingly useful addition. I have literally a drawer full of calculators, and Scientific Workplace on my computer, and all that (I am a math professor) but when I'm writing a document and need, say, 365.25 * 21, it is always a break in my flow to open said drawer or to boot up said software. Now - type on the Google toolbar, and I'm off!
The danger with "idiot" bosses is that they often become "blame you" bosses when they are in danger of being discovered. It's like a form of Darwinism - idiots who take responsibility for mistakes tend not to survive, while idiots who blame others for mistakes tend to hang around to be an example for future idiot bosses.
I would take the articles advice and get out - as soon as possible. Even if things seem tolerable.
And all, without mentioning how they do it in Soviet Russia. Because in Soviet Russia, they have a different method of dealing with companies like SCO, and it ain't pretty, and it ain't good either.
Guess you've never had a prof give the class an unfinished textbook, so we could be the guinea pigs. I had that happen a lot actually. Instead of using a good textbook, off the shelf, we had to use a horrible, unfinished, badly written book the prof was currently writing.
Now, unlike the previous example, THAT is completely unethical. You are talking about a professor who KNOWS the materials he's handing out are not the best available, and uses them anyway for his or her eventual profit. I think that is really bad behavior.
You are right- it never happened to me. But I know people to whom it has.
Gee, imagine that professors who write textbooks and get royalties might have an ulterior motive in requiring the text for their classes. Nah, nevermind -- I was just being cynical, it couldn't happen in real life.
You are right - you are just being cynical. How is that pose working for you?
The royalties on a particular textbook are not that large. The royalties on a particular adoption of a textbook (i.e. if I get my 100 students to buy it) are insignificant.
Professors do not write textbooks to get rich. If you calculate their income/hour of writing they often don't make minimum wage. There are easier ways to make money.
The example in this thread were CS professors. Computer Science professors who want to get rich can do things that are much easier than writing textbooks. For example, leaving academia.
There is a line between cynical and just silly. If a professor spends two years writing a book, it seems pretty clear that s/he is going to want to actually USE it in class. Why would there be an ulterior motive? Sometimes Occam is right.
Which begs the question why they haven't simply done that yet
(1) People who play blackjack poorly MORE than compensate for the occasional counter.
(2) The main winner for the casinos is slot machines. People line up to lose their money there. In places like Vegas, there is a lot of competition to get the slot-machine losers. If a casino offers a variety of games such as blackjack, card-rooms, pan, baccarat, etc... not only do they win money from those games, but then the bored spouse of the 7-card-stud or blackjack player is more likely to sit at a slot machine. The mathematics of it all is truly fascinating.
but I fall back on "If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?"
Because of the standard deviations involved, in order to play optimal blackjack, with a very low chance of losing your bankroll, your bankroll must be very high in relation to the amount you are betting.
With the highest bankroll I could afford, I went to Vegas and counted cards, and made my theoretical advantage: 1%. (A previous poster said 2% was possible. I've never seen a system that had an expectation of 2%. The very difficult systems I've seen were at about 1.25% - my system was MUCH easier and gave me my 1%)
This translated to about $3.50 per hour. After a day of counting, and let-me-tell-you it was very very draining, I went to the McDonalds and they were hiring at $4 per hour. After my meal, I went to the craps table and did not count cards again that trip.
If you have the bankroll to make a lot of money at card counting, the odds are you can invest it to make more money doing something else. And if you have the mental discipline and patience to do an advanced card counting strategy, you probably are qualified to be a top-notch actuary or accountant, and make more money that way.
1% with a high standard deviation is good for some profitable fun, but it will not make you rich. (The professionals, btw, have other techniques, involving working in teams, but that's getting off topic.)
of course. it's amazing! I've had some really really dirty looks from people at tables, and often people flat out accuse me of playing badly and affecting their hands.
I sympathise, my Anon friend. How about the people who see you hit a soft-18 when the time is right, and spend the next half hour "teaching" you how to play blackjack? You want to shout, "F*** you! I know how to play! I'm counting and have one $100 in this casino today!" But you can't do that for the obvious reason.
I wish that card counters were allowed to stay in casinos, AND that they were allowed machetes.
Another thing to think of is the card counter that screws you, and everyone else at the table by hitting when conventional wisdom says not to. If the dealer is showing a five and he has 16, one outght to stay, but if he is counting cards and gets 21, you are screwed if, by taking that card, he causes the dealer to beat you.
This is a very common sort of bs reasoning that permeates las vegas tables. The above scenario can happen. But it can also happen that the dealer is showing a ten and the counter has 16. Normally one ought to hit, but the counter might stay. His staying may cause the dealer to bust, giving EVERYBODY at the table a win.
I'm going to risk a preliminary estimate of 500 electorals for Bush if Dean is the Democrat candidate. If you think i'm wrong, I recommend a drive to Middle America and a discussion with some of the people there. Iowa is as middle America as you can get without a perscription. We love Dean.
Lieberman had a shot at the general public. The "let's try to be like the republicans so the general public will vote for us" strategy has cost the Democrats everything.
Think of Ronald Reagan. He was far from the mainstream (too far to the right.) He campaigned on his principles and chnaged the mainstream to fit his beliefs.
...and this is one reason why some companies are now internally tracking(billing) departments for their IT support.
I really like this, because it forces management to make explicit whose job is what. If, for example, management believes that it IS your job to, say, move the icon a pixel to the left, then at least they are forced to see the effect of that policy, and decide accordingly.
I completely take your point on the Xerox machine analogy.
Slashdot Mirror
Before this discussion turns into the typical "I hate the US" and "I hate Bush" ignorant ranting, let me remind you "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberals that it was your boy, Clinton, who had the ultimate push in this.
I'm a liberal. I'm even a "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberal, if you like. As long as it doesn't offend me. I don't give a damn if it offends you.
Clinton was never my boy. Clinton was never a liberal. No liberal ever described him as liberal, that was the creation of people who were too ignorant to look up the term, or to even ask a liberal what it meant. Clinton was pro-NAFTA, kicked thousands of poor people off of the welfare rolls, and fought (and won the fight against) medical marijuana. His proposed health-care reforms were all backed by large health-care companies.
Hey, he may not have been an idiot like your boy Bush, but just because someone is very smart does not make them a liberal.
I tore up the letter and threw it out thinking "i'm not going to support a stupid lawsuit like this"
Kudos to you. If more people were like you, the world might be a better place.
So basically the NY court system is like starbucks. You go from Supreme to Apellate to Appeals. Isn't there such a thing as a regular court?
This is the funniest slashdot post I have ever read.
Illegal? Umm... no. You may argue that it should be. Of course, the mail order places are technically not buying a degree. The Universal Life Church will give you a Ph.D. in divinity, but you have to pass a written final. The "study guide" has the answers to the questions, and the exam is NOT proctored.
Stupid? Hmm. I think so. But if you are the type of person who is just going to college so you can "get a degree" without worrying about learning, wouldn't the smart thing be to just buy the degree? Saves you money, you have your degree, and you can go on with your life?
I don't have a lot of respect for those who go to college and have no desire to learn, but those people exist, and it seems to me that the mail-order degree would be the efficient way to go.
Thank you; I like it, too. But I have to admit it is not original with me. I got it from a UNIX quote-file.
Let's follow along.
ONE:
For those who don't know AP essays are graded on how many words/phrases form a list were included in the essay.
User replies to poster, pointing out that his statement is a lie for AP English.
TWO:
I never took AP English, but that's how all the other AP tests work.
User replies to poster, pointing out that his statement is a lie for AP Calculus, including the parts where students have to write paragraphs of explanation.
THREE:
I was referring to Chemistry and US Hist. I think all histories and sciences are the same.
You didn't say "U.S. History" and "Chemistry", you implied, and then stated "All". I think you don't know what you are talking about. From your previous utterances, I don't think you have much credibility on Chemistry (are there essay questions in chem?) and U.S. History either.
Please cite your sources, as you have lost the burden of proof.
I'm not being sarcastic.
Calc is annoying as a mosquito. It is easier for me to open my drawer and take out a calculator than to use Calc.
I'm allowed to be eccentric, dammit. I'm a proffy
The title of this article should be Kaazalite Squeezes the Sharmin
I hate to break it to you, but most Profs would rather be working on their own research, getting grants, and publishing
This is crap. A common stereotype, but crap. It IS probably a valid generalization for major research institutions. But students knew that when they signed up. If the primary mission of their University is research, then they shouldn't be surprised that their profs are primarily interested in research. (That's not a bad thing, by the way. They should be in their proffy's office during office hours, pumping his/her brain about what they are doing, and taking full advantage of what research universities have to offer)
But not all universities in the United States are primarily research institutions. Some of them have teaching as their primary mission, and the story will be very different at these places. And it isn't an either / or; there is a huge continuum, with Universities everywhere along the dial.
"I never took AP English, but that's how all the other AP tests work"
Where are you getting your information? I grade AP calculus for the college board, and there are "essay" questions. We don't check spelling and grammar, but we do read EVERY paper, and we read for correct mathematics, presented correctly. We do not have a magic list of words we look for. And we are often "back read" by experienced (over 7 years) graders who come up to us if the disagree with our grade in order to discuss our reasoning for giving a number to a particular paper.
(There are also meta back readers)
I usually am not in the position of defending large corporations, but I have to say that the College Board does it right. They have a system for grading millions of papers fairly, and your criticism is ill-informed and off base.
To get a degree. Its not about the classes, its about getting points and getting the degree. If I wanted to learn I could do that on my own.
Then learn on your own. If you want to be efficient, just buy your degree. You can get one, mail order, from many places, at a fraction of the cost of four years tuition and living expenses.
Put your money where your mouth is. You want the degree? Drop out and buy one. Now learn on your own (if you want to learn, of course) and go try to be productive. Let me know how it works out for you in five years, when you are getting my fries ready.
. Some people just live too far away from school, sometimes they dont have cars, other times they just overslept
Then they shouldn't be in college, if they can't get to class. The order should be:
(1) Get your shit together
(2) Go to college
The "quality of your work" argument is fine, but you are assuming that "work" refers just to the stuff you turn in. And for many classes that is true, but not all of them. Sometimes "work" includes things you do in class. Participating.
Your posting reeks of a certain attitude I saw when I was an engineer. People who just want to read their textbook, submit their work, get a grade, have a place in most organizations. They make good peons, generating documents for the highly-paid people to present to even more highly-paid people. That is, until their knowlege gets out of date (hint: It takes over a year for new knowledge to get into the textbooks, if it ever does) and then they are easy to lay off, because they don't have the skills to notice its coming.
I know you were just being a smartass with that paragraph, but I have to say, it was wonderfully amusing. "If I have not typed 500 words, this paragraph is not my penultimate, nor was my last. To assert otherwise is prudent, but lacking in elegance." You should try to write a "post-modern novel" and see if Salon will give it a good review.
Most of the users in my environment simply write all their passwords on a piece of paper and stick them to their computer.
.txt file on my computer desktop. But once I noticed my queue had been changed, I would alter the password.
Problem solved!
You laugh, but in certain contexts, that is the easiest way to go, and not that bad, security-wise.
For example, I post on slashdot. I need a password, so pranky kids don't post under my name, saying rude things. Fine. Now let's say I wrote the password on a piece of paper, taped to my monitor.
Who sees my monitor? The custodian. I know Bernadette - she is a nice lady and isn't going to hack my slashdot account. My colleagues? They haven't the slightest interest in doing such a thing, nor do they have the time.
There are also low-stakes passwords. If my net-flix password got out, you all could ADD AND DELETE MOVIES FROM MY QUEUE! Oh the horror! If someone wanted my net-flix password, they could break into my office and find it in a
Obviously, I am careful with my bank password, etc. But otherwise, I don't see why it's so bad to have low-security when high-security is unwarrented.
A calculator!!
I didn't know until I read this post!
That is such a mind-bogglingly useful addition. I have literally a drawer full of calculators, and Scientific Workplace on my computer, and all that (I am a math professor) but when I'm writing a document and need, say, 365.25 * 21, it is always a break in my flow to open said drawer or to boot up said software. Now - type on the Google toolbar, and I'm off!
Woo woo woo!
Thank you, poster.
The danger with "idiot" bosses is that they often become "blame you" bosses when they are in danger of being discovered. It's like a form of Darwinism - idiots who take responsibility for mistakes tend not to survive, while idiots who blame others for mistakes tend to hang around to be an example for future idiot bosses.
I would take the articles advice and get out - as soon as possible. Even if things seem tolerable.
And all, without mentioning how they do it in Soviet Russia. Because in Soviet Russia, they have a different method of dealing with companies like SCO, and it ain't pretty, and it ain't good either.
In Soviet Russia, software patents YOU.
Guess you've never had a prof give the class an unfinished textbook, so we could be the guinea pigs. I had that happen a lot actually. Instead of using a good textbook, off the shelf, we had to use a horrible, unfinished, badly written book the prof was currently writing.
Now, unlike the previous example, THAT is completely unethical. You are talking about a professor who KNOWS the materials he's handing out are not the best available, and uses them anyway for his or her eventual profit. I think that is really bad behavior.
You are right- it never happened to me. But I know people to whom it has.
Gee, imagine that professors who write textbooks and get royalties might have an ulterior motive in requiring the text for their classes. Nah, nevermind -- I was just being cynical, it couldn't happen in real life.
You are right - you are just being cynical. How is that pose working for you?
The royalties on a particular textbook are not that large. The royalties on a particular adoption of a textbook (i.e. if I get my 100 students to buy it) are insignificant.
Professors do not write textbooks to get rich. If you calculate their income/hour of writing they often don't make minimum wage. There are easier ways to make money.
The example in this thread were CS professors. Computer Science professors who want to get rich can do things that are much easier than writing textbooks. For example, leaving academia.
There is a line between cynical and just silly. If a professor spends two years writing a book, it seems pretty clear that s/he is going to want to actually USE it in class. Why would there be an ulterior motive? Sometimes Occam is right.
Which begs the question why they haven't simply done that yet
(1) People who play blackjack poorly MORE than compensate for the occasional counter.
(2) The main winner for the casinos is slot machines. People line up to lose their money there. In places like Vegas, there is a lot of competition to get the slot-machine losers. If a casino offers a variety of games such as blackjack, card-rooms, pan, baccarat, etc... not only do they win money from those games, but then the bored spouse of the 7-card-stud or blackjack player is more likely to sit at a slot machine. The mathematics of it all is truly fascinating.
but I fall back on "If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?"
Because of the standard deviations involved, in order to play optimal blackjack, with a very low chance of losing your bankroll, your bankroll must be very high in relation to the amount you are betting.
With the highest bankroll I could afford, I went to Vegas and counted cards, and made my theoretical advantage: 1%. (A previous poster said 2% was possible. I've never seen a system that had an expectation of 2%. The very difficult systems I've seen were at about 1.25% - my system was MUCH easier and gave me my 1%)
This translated to about $3.50 per hour. After a day of counting, and let-me-tell-you it was very very draining, I went to the McDonalds and they were hiring at $4 per hour. After my meal, I went to the craps table and did not count cards again that trip.
If you have the bankroll to make a lot of money at card counting, the odds are you can invest it to make more money doing something else. And if you have the mental discipline and patience to do an advanced card counting strategy, you probably are qualified to be a top-notch actuary or accountant, and make more money that way.
1% with a high standard deviation is good for some profitable fun, but it will not make you rich. (The professionals, btw, have other techniques, involving working in teams, but that's getting off topic.)
of course.
it's amazing!
I've had some really really dirty looks from people at tables, and often people flat out accuse me of playing badly and affecting their hands.
I sympathise, my Anon friend. How about the people who see you hit a soft-18 when the time is right, and spend the next half hour "teaching" you how to play blackjack? You want to shout, "F*** you! I know how to play! I'm counting and have one $100 in this casino today!" But you can't do that for the obvious reason.
I wish that card counters were allowed to stay in casinos, AND that they were allowed machetes.
Another thing to think of is the card counter that screws you, and everyone else at the table by hitting when conventional wisdom says not to. If the dealer is showing a five and he has 16, one outght to stay, but if he is counting cards and gets 21, you are screwed if, by taking that card, he causes the dealer to beat you.
This is a very common sort of bs reasoning that permeates las vegas tables. The above scenario can happen. But it can also happen that the dealer is showing a ten and the counter has 16. Normally one ought to hit, but the counter might stay. His staying may cause the dealer to bust, giving EVERYBODY at the table a win.
Think about it.
I'm going to risk a preliminary estimate of 500 electorals for Bush if Dean is the Democrat candidate. If you think i'm wrong, I recommend a drive to Middle America and a discussion with some of the people there. Iowa is as middle America as you can get without a perscription. We love Dean.
Lieberman had a shot at the general public. The "let's try to be like the republicans so the general public will vote for us" strategy has cost the Democrats everything.
Think of Ronald Reagan. He was far from the mainstream (too far to the right.) He campaigned on his principles and chnaged the mainstream to fit his beliefs.
...and this is one reason why some companies are now internally tracking(billing) departments for their IT support.
I really like this, because it forces management to make explicit whose job is what. If, for example, management believes that it IS your job to, say, move the icon a pixel to the left, then at least they are forced to see the effect of that policy, and decide accordingly.
I completely take your point on the Xerox machine analogy.