given the amount of technology they've presumably acquired through industrial espionage
Forget about that - it's swamped by the amount of technology our ever patriotic "American" companies have given them by making a quick buck via "joint ventures" that include a technology sharing requirement. I kind of expect the other team to cheat a bit, but I'd hope we wouldn't make shooting ourselves in the foot a national pastime.
You're moving the goalposts. Your original post referred to "competition in innovation". If the Soviet space accomplishments as innovation, I don't know what does. It's also a dual-use technology, not strictly military. Moreover, even as far as the purely military technology goes, that doesn't count as innovation?
Or didn't the US start on a foundation of slaves building the infrastructure of the country?
No, it didn't. Slaves mostly grew cotton and the like. Railroads, canals, etc. were built by free labor, even if not always under the best of conditions.
Moreover, slavery had little to do with the productive output of the US, and everything to do with the distribution of wealth and income. US cotton production soared after the Civil War (as compared to the antebellum levels). Aside from the obvious immorality of slavery, the economic reality is that free labor is more productive.
Bah. For all their popularity, Chinese restaurants have not displaced the mighty hamburger or the ubiquitous pizza. Mexican restaurants are giving them a run for their money too.
Please explain how it's China bashing to point out the large scientific and technological projects in China. Also, if it's China bashing, why does the Chinese government proudly advertise these projects?
China is the second largest economy in the world and is the first "command economy" to actually offer competition in innovation to the US.
The first? Better check out which country put the first satellite into orbit and the first man into space, and which country had the first ballistic missiles and jet aircraft.
Technology transfers, foreign R&D investment, and training of Chinese scientists and engineers at research institutes and corporations overseas are part of China’s “indigenous innovation” drive to identify, digest, absorb, and reinvent select technological capabilities, both in civil and military domains.
Approaches that the US government happily facilitates. I'm all for competition (in civilian sectors anyway), but I am opposed to us bending over backwards to give our stuff to the other side.
So you are in favor of courtesy notes from burglars then?
Flawed analogy. Burglars steal your property. Snowden "stole" things that belonged to the people of the United States, and then gave them the access that they'd been denied to their own property! Oh, that's right, it was being kept secret for "our protection" (and the bureaucracy protecting itself - the main reason for government secrets).
We've got American nuclear bombs on UK soil alongside American controls means to deploy them. Do we really trust them that much more given the crap they get up to these days? Including spying on us and the rest of the EU?
Trust Americans to what, not nuke somebody you don't want to nuke? Whatever you think of ill conceived foreign ventures (in which the UK has generally been a partner, for reasons that escape me), nukes aren't likely.
As for spying, don't get sanctimonious. Ever hear of ECHELON. not to mention more recent revelations?
Without animosity though, I'll say that if you don't want US nukes on your soil, complain to your government. Tell them to act like a sovereign country. New Zealand did, and I haven't heard of any US-NZ war.
If it was actually seen as important by employers, then it would be. That's especially true in this job market, where people will do anything to get an edge (like taking a math minor).
At the very least, I doubt anyone will understand it when they're put through such garbage.
Then why teach it to anyone, including STEM students?
My answer (perhaps a wee bit egotistical) is that STEM majors are just plain smarter
If that's true, then there's my correlation vs. causation argument (above). They would have been just as smart if they didn't get STEM bachelor's. The STEM education itself is of little value if you're going to be a lawyer (with the exception of patent law).
Driving a taxi or cooking French fries are, technically, productive contributions to the economy.
Not just "technically", but in a very real and productive sense. I, and many other people I know, have hailed cabs or ordered fries, and been willing to pay for it, without the slightest coercion.
Banking, although necessary, is not actually productive in an economic sense.
Banking is productive to the extent that it provides useful financial services. However, the fact that the percentage of GDP devoted to it has doubled, while the additional "production" has been extravagant pay, scams, and financial crises, says that the additional costs of banking have not been productive.
Certain stem degree does mean that you can compete.
But not necessarily in English composition.
The highest LSAT score comes from phyics/math majors with engineering being a close second.
Law requires aptitude in English.
BTW, I normally don't pick on people's grammar, but waxing ecstatic about the virtues of STEM degrees for non-STEM careers is like painting a bull's eye on your chest. My apologies if you've not long been using English as a primary language.
More importantly, you've cited a correlation between undergraduate major and success (at least on standardized tests) in other fields but, as can't be repeated too often, correlation does not demonstrate causation. Do physics and math majors have the highest LSAT scores because of their education, or because the type of people who'll do well on the LSAT's gravitate towards such undergraduate majors?
everyone I know, even from low ranking colleges, ended up with a job after they graduated engineering school
You're living in a different time or place. That was true when I graduated too, but times have changed.
I think that so many people are against funding a stem education because it does not create employees, or customers, for Walmart.
Nonsense. Plenty of STEM Ph.D.'s are employed in such work. I understand that Walmart is considering increasing the minimum educational requirements for all "associates" from a bachelor's to a master's.
An understanding of some of the basic principles of "advanced" areas such as derivatives and integrals, probability and statistics, symbolic logic, set theory, etc., can prove invaluable in all manner of endeavours.
So is an understanding of English, various foreign languages, history, psychology, geography, etc. What's your point? Most of the math you mention can be taught at an advanced high school level, or maybe a college freshman or sophomore level. There's no need to get a math degree for it (a math degree being the obvious inference since you only mention math subjects). Even sillier would be getting a bachelor's degree (or higher) in a hard science or engineering just to learn the math you mention. If you get a BSEE or MSEE, but don't work in EE (or some related field) then a knowledge of the practical applications of electromagnetics, semiconductor physics, etc. is no more useful than a knowledge of art history or English literature.
If the math you mention is so useful, why not major in one of the other subjects I mentioned, and get a minor in math? Or perhaps an associate's degree, which would easily cover the subjects you mention.
Slashdot Mirror
That will never happen because their culture does not reward innovation.
That explains why they never invented porcelain, the blast furnace, paper, the compass or gunpowder.
can't do anything without gauging public opinion from the largely idiot masses
A group of which you are not a member, of course.
given the amount of technology they've presumably acquired through industrial espionage
Forget about that - it's swamped by the amount of technology our ever patriotic "American" companies have given them by making a quick buck via "joint ventures" that include a technology sharing requirement. I kind of expect the other team to cheat a bit, but I'd hope we wouldn't make shooting ourselves in the foot a national pastime.
You're moving the goalposts. Your original post referred to "competition in innovation". If the Soviet space accomplishments as innovation, I don't know what does. It's also a dual-use technology, not strictly military. Moreover, even as far as the purely military technology goes, that doesn't count as innovation?
Or didn't the US start on a foundation of slaves building the infrastructure of the country?
No, it didn't. Slaves mostly grew cotton and the like. Railroads, canals, etc. were built by free labor, even if not always under the best of conditions.
Moreover, slavery had little to do with the productive output of the US, and everything to do with the distribution of wealth and income. US cotton production soared after the Civil War (as compared to the antebellum levels). Aside from the obvious immorality of slavery, the economic reality is that free labor is more productive.
The school system in this country is terrible
There is no school system in this country - there are many school systems.
If there was an award for being impervious to sarcasm, it would surely go to Slashdot readers.
Bah. For all their popularity, Chinese restaurants have not displaced the mighty hamburger or the ubiquitous pizza. Mexican restaurants are giving them a run for their money too.
it's another day, another China bashing article
Please explain how it's China bashing to point out the large scientific and technological projects in China. Also, if it's China bashing, why does the Chinese government proudly advertise these projects?
China is the second largest economy in the world and is the first "command economy" to actually offer competition in innovation to the US.
The first? Better check out which country put the first satellite into orbit and the first man into space, and which country had the first ballistic missiles and jet aircraft.
it is the private sector that forms the mighty Chinese manufacturing base, not the government
Sure, if you consider the PLA part of the private sector. PLA enterprises do largely work within a market system though.
FTA:
Technology transfers, foreign R&D investment, and training of Chinese scientists and engineers at research institutes and corporations overseas are part of China’s “indigenous innovation” drive to identify, digest, absorb, and reinvent select technological capabilities, both in civil and military domains.
Approaches that the US government happily facilitates. I'm all for competition (in civilian sectors anyway), but I am opposed to us bending over backwards to give our stuff to the other side.
So you are in favor of courtesy notes from burglars then?
Flawed analogy. Burglars steal your property. Snowden "stole" things that belonged to the people of the United States, and then gave them the access that they'd been denied to their own property! Oh, that's right, it was being kept secret for "our protection" (and the bureaucracy protecting itself - the main reason for government secrets).
Why? FBI has been doing that since the days of J. Edgar Hoover and what good has that done this country?
Old J. Edgar held it too close to the vest - make the info public and the NSA would be doing the country a real service.
Go with the French. De Gaulle is dead.
What happens if you can't sell electricity at a high enough rate to pay back your investment?
No, China is buying those, not having the US invest in them. The Chinese government is not that stupid.
We've got American nuclear bombs on UK soil alongside American controls means to deploy them. Do we really trust them that much more given the crap they get up to these days? Including spying on us and the rest of the EU?
Trust Americans to what, not nuke somebody you don't want to nuke? Whatever you think of ill conceived foreign ventures (in which the UK has generally been a partner, for reasons that escape me), nukes aren't likely.
As for spying, don't get sanctimonious. Ever hear of ECHELON. not to mention more recent revelations?
Without animosity though, I'll say that if you don't want US nukes on your soil, complain to your government. Tell them to act like a sovereign country. New Zealand did, and I haven't heard of any US-NZ war.
P.S. For clarity, I am an American.
You're not very good at the rhetoric thing, are you? It helps if you make a rebuttal in a form that's clear outside of your own mind.
But it's not, and likely won't be.
If it was actually seen as important by employers, then it would be. That's especially true in this job market, where people will do anything to get an edge (like taking a math minor).
At the very least, I doubt anyone will understand it when they're put through such garbage.
Then why teach it to anyone, including STEM students?
My answer (perhaps a wee bit egotistical) is that STEM majors are just plain smarter
If that's true, then there's my correlation vs. causation argument (above). They would have been just as smart if they didn't get STEM bachelor's. The STEM education itself is of little value if you're going to be a lawyer (with the exception of patent law).
In ROW, engineers are up there with doctors as favorite son-in-law candidates for the daughters of respectable folks.
What's "ROW"?
Driving a taxi or cooking French fries are, technically, productive contributions to the economy.
Not just "technically", but in a very real and productive sense. I, and many other people I know, have hailed cabs or ordered fries, and been willing to pay for it, without the slightest coercion.
Banking, although necessary, is not actually productive in an economic sense.
Banking is productive to the extent that it provides useful financial services. However, the fact that the percentage of GDP devoted to it has doubled, while the additional "production" has been extravagant pay, scams, and financial crises, says that the additional costs of banking have not been productive.
Certain stem degree does mean that you can compete.
But not necessarily in English composition.
The highest LSAT score comes from phyics/math majors with engineering being a close second.
Law requires aptitude in English.
BTW, I normally don't pick on people's grammar, but waxing ecstatic about the virtues of STEM degrees for non-STEM careers is like painting a bull's eye on your chest. My apologies if you've not long been using English as a primary language.
More importantly, you've cited a correlation between undergraduate major and success (at least on standardized tests) in other fields but, as can't be repeated too often, correlation does not demonstrate causation. Do physics and math majors have the highest LSAT scores because of their education, or because the type of people who'll do well on the LSAT's gravitate towards such undergraduate majors?
everyone I know, even from low ranking colleges, ended up with a job after they graduated engineering school
You're living in a different time or place. That was true when I graduated too, but times have changed.
I think that so many people are against funding a stem education because it does not create employees, or customers, for Walmart.
Nonsense. Plenty of STEM Ph.D.'s are employed in such work. I understand that Walmart is considering increasing the minimum educational requirements for all "associates" from a bachelor's to a master's.
An understanding of some of the basic principles of "advanced" areas such as derivatives and integrals, probability and statistics, symbolic logic, set theory, etc., can prove invaluable in all manner of endeavours.
So is an understanding of English, various foreign languages, history, psychology, geography, etc. What's your point? Most of the math you mention can be taught at an advanced high school level, or maybe a college freshman or sophomore level. There's no need to get a math degree for it (a math degree being the obvious inference since you only mention math subjects). Even sillier would be getting a bachelor's degree (or higher) in a hard science or engineering just to learn the math you mention. If you get a BSEE or MSEE, but don't work in EE (or some related field) then a knowledge of the practical applications of electromagnetics, semiconductor physics, etc. is no more useful than a knowledge of art history or English literature.
If the math you mention is so useful, why not major in one of the other subjects I mentioned, and get a minor in math? Or perhaps an associate's degree, which would easily cover the subjects you mention.