Exception: law students tend to subsidize other schools, despite the fact that nowadays their employment chances are about at the level of communications majors.
There is currently a shortage of Engineering and Science majors, so charging more for these degrees is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Urban legend. There is a huge oversupply of several engineering and science majors. Try to get a job with a civil engineering degree, or a biology degree.
I don't touch type by sitting straight at my chair with my fingers on the "home row" and using only certain fingers (and only those fingers) to hit certain keys. And I still can out-type you and probably about 90% of typing teachers.
I'm distinguishing between formal touch typing as it has traditionally been taught in typing class, and informal touch typing, which I'm sure 90% of the posters here use (including myself). The formal method puts the wrists at an unnatural angle, and has rigid rules for which fingers you use for which keys.
Come on, how many of the "younger generation" do you really observe type? I'm sure your sample size is way too small to get a valid view. And I did one touch typing class in junior high but fortunately nothing stuck; formal touch-typing methods are absurd.
The 'great minds' earning PhDs in life sciences, probably would never be useful in the world of 'real' science anyway, so no great loss. Sorry if this sounds snobbish, but it is.:)
Wow, that's just...wow. Who do you think does biotech research exactly? And how many physicists do you think are really doing anything that will have "very useful and broadly applicable findings"?
Brandenburg is not throwing out the entire clear and present danger test; it simply changes the parameters of what the courts should consider clear and present danger.
No, you misunderstand; I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with the person you were disagreeing with. Brandenburg's just not really that much on point; the issue discussed in Brandenburg deals more with the line the Court will draw regarding advocacy of violence versus immediate incitement to violence.
You're missing the main point of Brandenburg; it turns on the constitutionality of a statute inhibiting advocacy, not making a bright line test as to what kind of speech can be regulated and what can not be. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is a type of verbal act outside of what the Court was analyzing; Brandenburg doesn't really apply to the argument as to whether it's permissible under the Constitution (and even Douglass isn't saying that speech must be done in concert with an overt act to be punished by the government; he's saying the instance of speech IS an overt act).
I guess I could have phrased it differently...I meant we portray physical force as some particularly egregious line when I think you have to look at the total effect. Like if I am wrongfully arrested by a corrupt cop and spend a week in jail because of that, I think that is a worse deprivation of rights than a punch in the jaw. I think if I sue the cop I should get more money than if he punched me. Just a personal belief.
Are you joking? You don't know why it's notable that a tablet computer is shown as having a SD slot? Do you think there might be another tablet computer this is meant to be in contrast to?
You have created a strawman out of whole cloth. All I said was on a personal level, I would rather be subjected to mild violence than imprisonment. I dare you to find anywhere in my post where I said that the violence would not constitute police misbehavior.
Me too. Never quite understood the outrage over police brutality. If it's a question between a cop punching me and letting me go, or arresting me and keeping me overnight, I'll go with the punch.
"Remember the coal labor camps of the early 1900's where workers were brutally beaten and arrested if they didn't serve the company?"
Ahh, if only we could return to that libertarian utopia again.
Fahrenheit is a more useful system for day-to-day use, because it gives more gradations than celsius. Wait, this is slashdot..umm...Americans dumb, everyone else smart, etc. etc., any difference between how America does something and how other countries do something is because Americans are dumb, etc. etc., have I conformed my post to the groupthink yet?
So? What do you think happens when the debate moves to pollution? The same people whining about how global warming can't be real because climate has changed in the path here start whining about how pollution isn't really that bad and poor manufacturers shouldn't be forced by the statists to spend 3% of their revenues on pollution control technology because that will usher in a permanent economic depression. This same debate will be played out, only talking about dioxins instead of CO2.
Oh, so I should write my Congresspeople to pass an amendment striking the language in the General Welfare clause that limits the taxing and spending power to furtherance of the other enumerated powers? Oops, it's not there. You lose right off the bat on the plain language argument; I'm actually a little surprised you even tried raising it.
Slashdot Mirror
Was that aimed at me? I'm a bit confused.
Exception: law students tend to subsidize other schools, despite the fact that nowadays their employment chances are about at the level of communications majors.
There is currently a shortage of Engineering and Science majors, so charging more for these degrees is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Urban legend. There is a huge oversupply of several engineering and science majors. Try to get a job with a civil engineering degree, or a biology degree.
Most of these kinds of contracts allow the company to assign their rights in the contract to another party.
I don't touch type by sitting straight at my chair with my fingers on the "home row" and using only certain fingers (and only those fingers) to hit certain keys. And I still can out-type you and probably about 90% of typing teachers.
Dude, I guarantee I type a hell of a lot faster than you do.
I'm distinguishing between formal touch typing as it has traditionally been taught in typing class, and informal touch typing, which I'm sure 90% of the posters here use (including myself). The formal method puts the wrists at an unnatural angle, and has rigid rules for which fingers you use for which keys.
Eh? Having a kid at 24 and a half, and then having that kid have a kid at 24 and a half isn't really that outrageous.
Come on, how many of the "younger generation" do you really observe type? I'm sure your sample size is way too small to get a valid view. And I did one touch typing class in junior high but fortunately nothing stuck; formal touch-typing methods are absurd.
The 'great minds' earning PhDs in life sciences, probably would never be useful in the world of 'real' science anyway, so no great loss. Sorry if this sounds snobbish, but it is. :)
Wow, that's just...wow. Who do you think does biotech research exactly? And how many physicists do you think are really doing anything that will have "very useful and broadly applicable findings"?
Brandenburg is not throwing out the entire clear and present danger test; it simply changes the parameters of what the courts should consider clear and present danger.
No, you misunderstand; I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with the person you were disagreeing with. Brandenburg's just not really that much on point; the issue discussed in Brandenburg deals more with the line the Court will draw regarding advocacy of violence versus immediate incitement to violence.
You're missing the main point of Brandenburg; it turns on the constitutionality of a statute inhibiting advocacy, not making a bright line test as to what kind of speech can be regulated and what can not be. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is a type of verbal act outside of what the Court was analyzing; Brandenburg doesn't really apply to the argument as to whether it's permissible under the Constitution (and even Douglass isn't saying that speech must be done in concert with an overt act to be punished by the government; he's saying the instance of speech IS an overt act).
I guess I could have phrased it differently...I meant we portray physical force as some particularly egregious line when I think you have to look at the total effect. Like if I am wrongfully arrested by a corrupt cop and spend a week in jail because of that, I think that is a worse deprivation of rights than a punch in the jaw. I think if I sue the cop I should get more money than if he punched me. Just a personal belief.
Are you joking? You don't know why it's notable that a tablet computer is shown as having a SD slot? Do you think there might be another tablet computer this is meant to be in contrast to?
You have created a strawman out of whole cloth. All I said was on a personal level, I would rather be subjected to mild violence than imprisonment. I dare you to find anywhere in my post where I said that the violence would not constitute police misbehavior.
Me too. Never quite understood the outrage over police brutality. If it's a question between a cop punching me and letting me go, or arresting me and keeping me overnight, I'll go with the punch.
"Remember the coal labor camps of the early 1900's where workers were brutally beaten and arrested if they didn't serve the company?" Ahh, if only we could return to that libertarian utopia again.
When you're adjusting your air conditioning to your comfort level it is.
Yes.
Fahrenheit is a more useful system for day-to-day use, because it gives more gradations than celsius. Wait, this is slashdot..umm...Americans dumb, everyone else smart, etc. etc., any difference between how America does something and how other countries do something is because Americans are dumb, etc. etc., have I conformed my post to the groupthink yet?
I think that's untrue. Are you an American?
But I would find, say, the BBC Earth documentary better on blu-ray than DVD.
So? What do you think happens when the debate moves to pollution? The same people whining about how global warming can't be real because climate has changed in the path here start whining about how pollution isn't really that bad and poor manufacturers shouldn't be forced by the statists to spend 3% of their revenues on pollution control technology because that will usher in a permanent economic depression. This same debate will be played out, only talking about dioxins instead of CO2.
Oh, so I should write my Congresspeople to pass an amendment striking the language in the General Welfare clause that limits the taxing and spending power to furtherance of the other enumerated powers? Oops, it's not there. You lose right off the bat on the plain language argument; I'm actually a little surprised you even tried raising it.