I agree completely. You can't just say that as a company you want to benefit from free market rules and then not have that applied to your employees. This would only be possible if the labour supply is high and the the amount of jobs is low. This is a poor way of correcting that by having people sit out. Piss poor on the part of the companies involved. This was previously modded at +5 Insightful. Some PHB with a penchant for complexity in contracts probably downvoted.
Boy some of you guys must be pretty young. Have you ever used anonymous ftp? Anonymous ftp works by entering the host, then your username, coincidentally: "anonymous" or "ftp", and then you enter your email or the password "guest". It doesn't even check if these are correct. It just let's you straight through
Regulating drones requires definition/implementation of new standards (fail at that one before), regulation (even bigger fail) and money and effort put into researching new technologies and protocols. In effect they have to corral an entire industry into a framework. It is no wonder that they failed and will probably not do it until someone big enough like Google does the equivalent by bringing in a consortium of companies to define and implement these standards, technologies and protocols. It is going to take a group as large as government in this area to do what the government is supposed to do.
The summary is obviously full of holes, because there are plans to make matter/antimatter colliders that would harness way more energy. So yes we have identified a need, and we know that the Standard Model is incomplete and needs more work. Saying there is nothing new to discover truly lacks a scientific imagination. This is the same sort of bs that prevented the LHC or equivalent from being constructed in the US: "Will we find the 'God' particle?"
Isn't an encrypted population like an armed population? Computers capable of powerful of enough encryption which once classified as munitions and their export banned. So having encryption is kind of like having the right to defend yourself. Which I do not see as bad, nor should the republicans who believe in the right to bear arms.
Have you considered that one day the electric power to fuel these cars may not be coming from "dirty sources". If we have a chain like this "dirty -> clean" which enables the possibility of " clean -> clean", isn't that better than a chain which leads from " [clean|dirty] -> no change dirty"? Supposing we do wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel industry as you may envision. Do you think that involves have "dirty" cars and "clean" supply chains? Converting electricity and hydrogen [ yes electricity can be collected directly from "clean sources" and hydrogen can be formed from H20 using electricity] to carbon may be feasible one day, but there is no reason do that if we have electric or hydrogen powered cars which use this clean energy. Of course electric cars cost more to produce now, blah blah blah, more pollution goes into their production, blah blah blah, but the first problem is a problem of scale, and the second problem can be eliminated by using "clean" energy sources in their production.[ another part of the clean supply chain ]. We are going to have to make a serious commitment. Or is that the point "we will have little need for carbon once we switch" is the part that is bothering the "sceptics"? Even if you don't care where we get our energy from, it still has to be there.
I never talked about the punishments of the "crimes" or whether they were in proportion to the "offense" or that government's using technology to spy on citizens is good. In fact I disagree. This is selective punishment. Perhaps I should have said: "Although China still has overly broad laws on the books, they are trying to fight technology with technology...We are doing it here, in a more specific and cloak-and-dagger way, but we should not try to specify the time and place for technology, which we are attempting to do en-masse". For all: more freedom = better freedom. If someone wants to block our connection fine, then let us find ways to unblock it. If it is really worth the investment, which will be a deterrent, then find a way to re-block it otherwise spending money on such a thing will prove to be unfeasible. Laws need to be fixed, technology needs to improve. This freedom is one of the reasons why TOR is still in the game, America will continue to have an advantage and why we are advancing in general. How about a new Amendment: the freedom to develop technology?
What I was trying to point out, while core dumping, we should not be trusting to put "all of our eggs in one basket", and trust an entity that could one day turn out not to be our friend. It is a tale of two countries if you will. BTW part of reading is seeing what you can get out of something even if it is not as eloquent as you are.
Re:What's the difference between China and EU?
on
China Cuts Off Some VPNs
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There is an interesting irony in this. In China, which to my own opinion has been historically more oppressive, now you have the engineers and the scientists in charge of government (true) while as in Europe and the Americas, we have lawyers and businessmen in charge. It appears as though China is taking a technological approach to solving its perceived problems, such as searching for keywords, blocking, defeating TOR and the like, while in the West, our governments appear to be bent on passing laws and ordinances that tell companies and ourselves what we can install and use and how we must use it so we can justify charges c.f. recent attempts to codify in law backdoors into tech companies products and hiding what they are doing. The overly broad laws in China do not change but the technology is not as well hidden and grows. For example, China has setup fake Apple stores (this should be a warning) so that once an iPhone is jailbroken, it becomes easier to install malware on that person's iPhone in order to spy on the user to see if they have broken these laws. The government puts much effort into catching people without knowing they have committed a crime. In the West, laws are changing too fast and laws have become overly specific instead of broad. Nobody likes being told over and over which task to do and nobody likes being told how to do a task. The Chinese know that what they are doing is unpopular, but here, the government has to hide because perception will be that they are not doing the right thing if they are discovered, which says a lot about what they are doing. The government here seems to care more that they are doing the same unpopular things, but that have a history of goodwill which they are destroying, so we can continue to say "Here in the West". This should be a warning sign.
who brought us the "Google includes its own advertisements in search" complainers. They developed the product, so they get to say how it behaves or how much of their own product they include with their own product. Or should we conclude that these companies represent a significant presence in our life that we should all pay a mandatory fee to them and treat them as otherwise some sort of necessary corporations that simply have to exist? But then they would be like governments. Because that is the only way we will have a say in what they produce, except with our wallets.
And then let the incumbents try to explain, rather than having to dispute every negative claim about Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality would, instead of being tiered, would allow and has allowed each community to be treated equally. It would allow the Internet to be treated more like a utility. It is like how you receive water in your community now, everyone pays the same rate. If these guys think that the water company will allow them to get their water for little or less money and that somehow someone else would foot the bill for them because of a tiered structure, would you believe the water company? No they would probably only invest money that they were getting back from the community. If water was declared a right, then the company providing might be forced into providing set water. I can think of ways a person or a company can benefit from Net Neutrality. I will give three examples: Google and Facebook and Paypal. Mark Zuckerberg only had a few thousand in cash to start his first server farm, and I doubt the founders of Google had that much more. When Elon Musk came to the United States he had little cash and received $300 million from his part the sale of Paypal to Ebay. Where would Google, Facebook, Tesla and countless others be today without Net Neutrality? They depended on access of various users to be consistent when they were small and when they became large. Try explaining to poorer neighbourhoods that they could create a startup based upon money to pay and not being in a slow lane. The Internet is part of the American dream, we are not done yet. The results are plain to see.
So that is an excuse for cutting funding as I am presuming the committee wants. What about all of those Skunk Works projects in defense. We don't know "where the money went" but it supposedly was put to good use. Cry me a river.
So if we give out more spectrum this will make it harder for data to be treated equally. Sounds more like Comcast et. al saying, hah! you see because we were granted spectrum and this dude (or these dudes) on the Internet said that it will make Net Neutrality harder to regulate, that is why in the future, our plans are to not follow Net Neutrality will pan out. Then when that happens, everybody is like "Why can't we have Net Neutrality" and Comcast et. al will say "Yeah, weren't you listening to those Internet dudes?" In other words they pay somebody to say that this will happen and then they make it happen, and then cite "natural causes" as a way to operate in contrast to Net Neutrality. Same thing with the "AT&T will delay 1Gb lines because of 'Net Neutrality'"...who is writing their training manual?
Absolutely, if they have all the evidence sue them directly. Sounds like they are arguing on behalf of their "agent" Rightscorp, Inc. to do their dirty work. Also they want Cox to be the agent of Rightscorp. Pay up buddies. These guys can die in their own copyright labyrinth.
This is a 2-line patch on a bloated piece of software consisting of millions of lines of code, that uses hard-coded, recycled components using none of the standards software development techniques, that doesn't use API's, has no version control and is beta-tested on users before the finished product is delivered that causes the user to acknowledge a security deficit that can't be fixed by the user that was glued together by programmers who don't work for the same organization and have no network to help collaborate or organize their work.
This is complete nonsense in countries with public health care. Half of the reason why price-gouging doesn't exists is because most everybody carries a card which identifies their provider which is paid by the government through taxes or through a modest monthly fee i.e. here in Alberta it is approximately $60.00 Canadian per month for Blue Cross. The government (oooo bad word) regulates how much a doctor can charge for a covered service. Not all things are covered, however - only the things that are considered essential. So in Alberta, for instance, you can see the doctor regardless if you do or do not have the cash at the time. All it takes is a computer linked to the insurance provider to bill for the service. No gouging or extensive paperwork. The only "responsibility" is that you pay your bills within a reasonable period of time, not whether or not you have the cash on hand. No laws are needed other than that every doctor charges an appropriate fee. I have a question. The repubs in the states like to say how great the free market and capitalism work, and most people agree - for the most part they do. However, for the unfettered one, there is always a caveat like "if only monopolies didn't exist that go against public interest", or "if only the companies responsible for the mess would clean it up before they go bankrupt" or "we would have great infrastructure if only somebody would pay for the roads". How come so often under the fabled unfettered free market (Now I am adding my own in a reverse way), these objectives are seldom met except to say that under a "real free market system" they would be? I guess we just have to keep on hoping and trying.
"Living on a Carbon Budget" - Parody of Living on a Prayer
Whoa, whoa, whoa
Once upon a time not long ago.
America used to only use coal
Koch brothers in control
Their down on their luck..
It's tough, so tough
Germany is 31% renewable
Working for her neighbours
She gives out her energy
For love, for love
Pielke says, "We've gotta hold on to what we've got"
It doesn't matter if we like solar a lot
We've got each other and that's a lot
For energy
We’ll give it a fill
Whoa, At 2035
We're almost there
Livin’ on a Carbon budget
Read my article and we'll make it - I swear
Whoa, livin on a Carbon budget
We need approximately 770 quads
Now the OCED holdin'in
What they used to make it talk
So tough so tough
China dreams of producing each day
Enough renewable energy
The USA whispers
"It's gonna be okay, someday"
Pielke says, "We've gotta hold on to what we've got"
It doesn't matter if we like solar a lot
We've got each other and that's a lot
For energy
We’ll give it a fill
Livin' on a Carbon budget
We've gotta hold on to coal ready or not
You live in the past if that's all that you've got
Whao
We’re almost there
Whao
Living on a Carbon budget
We’ll make it I swear.
I am one of those persons who get good grades and work hard and challenges myself in difficult fields,
but fail when it comes to selling myself or cramming years worth
of experience into 30 minutes for a job interview. ( I do well on tests). The motivating problem
is that employers cannot seem to find good candidates for the job
they are offering, of after they had offered the job, the candidate
didn't turn out so good, same thing.
If the interview process was so great, there
wouldn't be so much complaining. The problem is, if we eliminate grades
as a measure, we will be eliminating another competency.
It is a problem of false positives vs false negatives.
Sure there are many people who pass college who are incompetent. They
are the false positives. The false negatives are the ones who do
not pass college who are not incompetent. So it is a balance. Do you
want to make sure that nobody who isn't skilled doesn't get a job.
(This works against society). Or do you want to take your chances with
a system that generates some false positives and false negatives.
For myself, I would certainly say that education has been great, because
had I been hired into a position of worthiness, I probably would
have been able to achieve much more. But consider the true positives,
some of those would have been lost because their greatness would
have never been realized if we didn't have a system where "building stuff"
was more important than "How I answer a question of how I think my life
would be if I got a chance to build stuff." .
Now do you want to argue with me when I say "had I been hired" and say that
because I didn't I am not an achiever? Suppose I had been a "faker" who
really didn't have any marketable skills to show. Or that
people had wasted time on me since I didn't move on as well. Well, I guess
I was one of the false positives then, but how would we ever know? Surely
not putting the best use of everybody in society. The other alternative presented is to have
all the best students who show creativity and motivation, but have the chance of generating false
positives that have not learned the skills that enable them to "build stuff" and deal
with the mechanical and non-human world if such a thing can exist. Sure we will all
get along great on our little planet, but how about going beyond that?
My solution is a medieval one, have apprentices just like in the
middle ages. Co-op's and industrial internships are a step, but how about
taking it a step further and developing a system whereby people learn on
the job while they are being educated? I believe Germany has this model.
One side effect is that people have less choice later in life to decide which
career path to follow, but do we
have a better way now? As another side effect though,
such an alternate system might might not do as well in generating people who
sell themselves... or people might switch to another employer who pays more
but doesn't participate. One other side effect, is that those who are creative and talented might
get relegated to a role that doesn't use their capabilities, or that the system might be inflexible once we
have it set up. We could have a stream for such bright and talented individuals like they have in the movies, but now we can't even debate the merits of such a system because we haven't done so.
So in other words, instead of building a user-interface lab to track and observe reactions, Microsoft is using test users not associated with Microsoft, per say, saving some money while at the same time gathering what could argued to be private user data. Win for Microsoft but a loss for the consumer. I wonder if it is entirely modular so that they can simply just remove it.
Isn't your idea equivalent to no government? The idea behind government is to pool resources. Sure and who is charging for the service. Probably according to you it is not a government. Who then, is in charge of making sure we aren't held hostage on a road tax? Environmental tax? Nice idea. The whole idea behind protecting the environment is to foresee a common problem, then work towards a goal that will mitigate that problem. If we collect an "environment tax" for a so-called problem, how do we know it is going to solve that "right" problem? Besides isn't the whole idea behind a corporation is that they are fallible, that is they can die. If one of your issues suddenly become moot, we have a whole infrastructure dedicated to collecting those taxes and providing the service = less change. Most sane people (and I hate to label others the opposite) know that pooling of resources and hence some form of "socialization" is the best way to get things done, whether it be money from a general populace to an owner who prioritizes, or a government that collects taxes to do things that benefit others, and themselves. Suppose we need a road, or other infrastructure that benefits both you and your competitors, but building it would transfer wealth away from your business, would you build it? Probably not because it would put you at an immediate competitive disadvantage. Want to form a bigger group to get it done, no problem, there are bigger competitors. No one wants to be a sacrificial lamb. Can you see an answer to that problem?
Scientific consensus has not received a bad reputation. The scientific method has existed for hundreds of years. However, sometimes science makes people mad for the conclusions it has drawn. I bet you that "Americans for Progress" would not even venture to understand science. Others want it to be wrong, but they can't use the scientific method to disprove science. Flaimbat of a summary. Even for those who do not understand science, let us not try to weaken its conclusions by acting like it "has gotten a bad reputation".
A reputation is a little like science in that it takes several observations to come up with a reputation because there is something to it as opposed to an inkling or a hunch. The title "Some people have a hunch that science is not sound.", however false, would be more true but the real story here is "Some people want science to have a bad reputation because it serves their interest".
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely. You can't just say that as a company you want to benefit from free market rules and then not have that applied to your employees. This would only be possible if the labour supply is high and the the amount of jobs is low. This is a poor way of correcting that by having people sit out. Piss poor on the part of the companies involved. This was previously modded at +5 Insightful. Some PHB with a penchant for complexity in contracts probably downvoted.
Boy some of you guys must be pretty young. Have you ever used anonymous ftp? Anonymous ftp works by entering the host, then your username, coincidentally: "anonymous" or "ftp", and then you enter your email or the password "guest". It doesn't even check if these are correct. It just let's you straight through
Regulating drones requires definition/implementation of new standards (fail at that one before), regulation (even bigger fail) and money and effort put into researching new technologies and protocols. In effect they have to corral an entire industry into a framework. It is no wonder that they failed and will probably not do it until someone big enough like Google does the equivalent by bringing in a consortium of companies to define and implement these standards, technologies and protocols. It is going to take a group as large as government in this area to do what the government is supposed to do.
The summary is obviously full of holes, because there are plans to make matter/antimatter colliders that would harness way more energy. So yes we have identified a need, and we know that the Standard Model is incomplete and needs more work. Saying there is nothing new to discover truly lacks a scientific imagination. This is the same sort of bs that prevented the LHC or equivalent from being constructed in the US: "Will we find the 'God' particle?"
Isn't an encrypted population like an armed population? Computers capable of powerful of enough encryption which once classified as munitions and their export banned. So having encryption is kind of like having the right to defend yourself. Which I do not see as bad, nor should the republicans who believe in the right to bear arms.
Have you considered that one day the electric power to fuel these cars may not be coming from "dirty sources". If we have a chain like this "dirty -> clean" which enables the possibility of " clean -> clean", isn't that better than a chain which leads from " [clean|dirty] -> no change dirty"? Supposing we do wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel industry as you may envision. Do you think that involves have "dirty" cars and "clean" supply chains? Converting electricity and hydrogen [ yes electricity can be collected directly from "clean sources" and hydrogen can be formed from H20 using electricity] to carbon may be feasible one day, but there is no reason do that if we have electric or hydrogen powered cars which use this clean energy. Of course electric cars cost more to produce now, blah blah blah, more pollution goes into their production, blah blah blah, but the first problem is a problem of scale, and the second problem can be eliminated by using "clean" energy sources in their production.[ another part of the clean supply chain ]. We are going to have to make a serious commitment. Or is that the point "we will have little need for carbon once we switch" is the part that is bothering the "sceptics"? Even if you don't care where we get our energy from, it still has to be there.
I never talked about the punishments of the "crimes" or whether they were in proportion to the "offense" or that government's using technology to spy on citizens is good. In fact I disagree. This is selective punishment. Perhaps I should have said: "Although China still has overly broad laws on the books, they are trying to fight technology with technology...We are doing it here, in a more specific and cloak-and-dagger way, but we should not try to specify the time and place for technology, which we are attempting to do en-masse". For all: more freedom = better freedom. If someone wants to block our connection fine, then let us find ways to unblock it. If it is really worth the investment, which will be a deterrent, then find a way to re-block it otherwise spending money on such a thing will prove to be unfeasible. Laws need to be fixed, technology needs to improve. This freedom is one of the reasons why TOR is still in the game, America will continue to have an advantage and why we are advancing in general. How about a new Amendment: the freedom to develop technology?
What I was trying to point out, while core dumping, we should not be trusting to put "all of our eggs in one basket", and trust an entity that could one day turn out not to be our friend. It is a tale of two countries if you will. BTW part of reading is seeing what you can get out of something even if it is not as eloquent as you are.
There is an interesting irony in this. In China, which to my own opinion has been historically more oppressive, now you have the engineers and the scientists in charge of government (true) while as in Europe and the Americas, we have lawyers and businessmen in charge. It appears as though China is taking a technological approach to solving its perceived problems, such as searching for keywords, blocking, defeating TOR and the like, while in the West, our governments appear to be bent on passing laws and ordinances that tell companies and ourselves what we can install and use and how we must use it so we can justify charges c.f. recent attempts to codify in law backdoors into tech companies products and hiding what they are doing. The overly broad laws in China do not change but the technology is not as well hidden and grows. For example, China has setup fake Apple stores (this should be a warning) so that once an iPhone is jailbroken, it becomes easier to install malware on that person's iPhone in order to spy on the user to see if they have broken these laws. The government puts much effort into catching people without knowing they have committed a crime. In the West, laws are changing too fast and laws have become overly specific instead of broad. Nobody likes being told over and over which task to do and nobody likes being told how to do a task. The Chinese know that what they are doing is unpopular, but here, the government has to hide because perception will be that they are not doing the right thing if they are discovered, which says a lot about what they are doing. The government here seems to care more that they are doing the same unpopular things, but that have a history of goodwill which they are destroying, so we can continue to say "Here in the West". This should be a warning sign.
How about "True" or "Controversial" for "hot topics" for which have been voted on many times, both false and true?
who brought us the "Google includes its own advertisements in search" complainers. They developed the product, so they get to say how it behaves or how much of their own product they include with their own product. Or should we conclude that these companies represent a significant presence in our life that we should all pay a mandatory fee to them and treat them as otherwise some sort of necessary corporations that simply have to exist? But then they would be like governments. Because that is the only way we will have a say in what they produce, except with our wallets.
And then let the incumbents try to explain, rather than having to dispute every negative claim about Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality would, instead of being tiered, would allow and has allowed each community to be treated equally. It would allow the Internet to be treated more like a utility. It is like how you receive water in your community now, everyone pays the same rate. If these guys think that the water company will allow them to get their water for little or less money and that somehow someone else would foot the bill for them because of a tiered structure, would you believe the water company? No they would probably only invest money that they were getting back from the community. If water was declared a right, then the company providing might be forced into providing set water. I can think of ways a person or a company can benefit from Net Neutrality. I will give three examples: Google and Facebook and Paypal. Mark Zuckerberg only had a few thousand in cash to start his first server farm, and I doubt the founders of Google had that much more. When Elon Musk came to the United States he had little cash and received $300 million from his part the sale of Paypal to Ebay. Where would Google, Facebook, Tesla and countless others be today without Net Neutrality? They depended on access of various users to be consistent when they were small and when they became large. Try explaining to poorer neighbourhoods that they could create a startup based upon money to pay and not being in a slow lane. The Internet is part of the American dream, we are not done yet. The results are plain to see.
So that is an excuse for cutting funding as I am presuming the committee wants. What about all of those Skunk Works projects in defense. We don't know "where the money went" but it supposedly was put to good use. Cry me a river.
So if we give out more spectrum this will make it harder for data to be treated equally. Sounds more like Comcast et. al saying, hah! you see because we were granted spectrum and this dude (or these dudes) on the Internet said that it will make Net Neutrality harder to regulate, that is why in the future, our plans are to not follow Net Neutrality will pan out. Then when that happens, everybody is like "Why can't we have Net Neutrality" and Comcast et. al will say "Yeah, weren't you listening to those Internet dudes?" In other words they pay somebody to say that this will happen and then they make it happen, and then cite "natural causes" as a way to operate in contrast to Net Neutrality. Same thing with the "AT&T will delay 1Gb lines because of 'Net Neutrality'"...who is writing their training manual?
Absolutely, if they have all the evidence sue them directly. Sounds like they are arguing on behalf of their "agent" Rightscorp, Inc. to do their dirty work. Also they want Cox to be the agent of Rightscorp. Pay up buddies. These guys can die in their own copyright labyrinth.
Prediction: "Band" will soon need "aid"
This is a 2-line patch on a bloated piece of software consisting of millions of lines of code, that uses hard-coded, recycled components using none of the standards software development techniques, that doesn't use API's, has no version control and is beta-tested on users before the finished product is delivered that causes the user to acknowledge a security deficit that can't be fixed by the user that was glued together by programmers who don't work for the same organization and have no network to help collaborate or organize their work.
This is complete nonsense in countries with public health care. Half of the reason why price-gouging doesn't exists is because most everybody carries a card which identifies their provider which is paid by the government through taxes or through a modest monthly fee i.e. here in Alberta it is approximately $60.00 Canadian per month for Blue Cross. The government (oooo bad word) regulates how much a doctor can charge for a covered service. Not all things are covered, however - only the things that are considered essential. So in Alberta, for instance, you can see the doctor regardless if you do or do not have the cash at the time. All it takes is a computer linked to the insurance provider to bill for the service. No gouging or extensive paperwork. The only "responsibility" is that you pay your bills within a reasonable period of time, not whether or not you have the cash on hand. No laws are needed other than that every doctor charges an appropriate fee. I have a question. The repubs in the states like to say how great the free market and capitalism work, and most people agree - for the most part they do. However, for the unfettered one, there is always a caveat like "if only monopolies didn't exist that go against public interest", or "if only the companies responsible for the mess would clean it up before they go bankrupt" or "we would have great infrastructure if only somebody would pay for the roads". How come so often under the fabled unfettered free market (Now I am adding my own in a reverse way), these objectives are seldom met except to say that under a "real free market system" they would be? I guess we just have to keep on hoping and trying.
So they are down to developing customer centric solutions while leveraging their key synergies. Anything better than riding the corporate wave?
"Living on a Carbon Budget" - Parody of Living on a Prayer
Whoa, whoa, whoa
Once upon a time not long ago.
America used to only use coal
Koch brothers in control
Their down on their luck..
It's tough, so tough
Germany is 31% renewable
Working for her neighbours
She gives out her energy
For love, for love
Pielke says, "We've gotta hold on to what we've got"
It doesn't matter if we like solar a lot
We've got each other and that's a lot
For energy
We’ll give it a fill
Whoa, At 2035
We're almost there
Livin’ on a Carbon budget
Read my article and we'll make it - I swear
Whoa, livin on a Carbon budget
We need approximately 770 quads
Now the OCED holdin'in
What they used to make it talk
So tough so tough
China dreams of producing each day
Enough renewable energy
The USA whispers
"It's gonna be okay, someday"
Pielke says, "We've gotta hold on to what we've got"
It doesn't matter if we like solar a lot
We've got each other and that's a lot
For energy
We’ll give it a fill
Livin' on a Carbon budget
We've gotta hold on to coal ready or not
You live in the past if that's all that you've got
Whao
We’re almost there
Whao
Living on a Carbon budget
We’ll make it I swear.
I am one of those persons who get good grades and work hard and challenges myself in difficult fields, but fail when it comes to selling myself or cramming years worth of experience into 30 minutes for a job interview. ( I do well on tests). The motivating problem is that employers cannot seem to find good candidates for the job they are offering, of after they had offered the job, the candidate didn't turn out so good, same thing.
... or people might switch to another employer who pays more
but doesn't participate. One other side effect, is that those who are creative and talented might
get relegated to a role that doesn't use their capabilities, or that the system might be inflexible once we
have it set up. We could have a stream for such bright and talented individuals like they have in the movies, but now we can't even debate the merits of such a system because we haven't done so.
If the interview process was so great, there wouldn't be so much complaining. The problem is, if we eliminate grades as a measure, we will be eliminating another competency. It is a problem of false positives vs false negatives. Sure there are many people who pass college who are incompetent. They are the false positives. The false negatives are the ones who do not pass college who are not incompetent. So it is a balance. Do you want to make sure that nobody who isn't skilled doesn't get a job. (This works against society). Or do you want to take your chances with a system that generates some false positives and false negatives. For myself, I would certainly say that education has been great, because had I been hired into a position of worthiness, I probably would have been able to achieve much more. But consider the true positives, some of those would have been lost because their greatness would have never been realized if we didn't have a system where "building stuff" was more important than "How I answer a question of how I think my life would be if I got a chance to build stuff." .
Now do you want to argue with me when I say "had I been hired" and say that because I didn't I am not an achiever? Suppose I had been a "faker" who really didn't have any marketable skills to show. Or that people had wasted time on me since I didn't move on as well. Well, I guess I was one of the false positives then, but how would we ever know? Surely not putting the best use of everybody in society. The other alternative presented is to have all the best students who show creativity and motivation, but have the chance of generating false positives that have not learned the skills that enable them to "build stuff" and deal with the mechanical and non-human world if such a thing can exist. Sure we will all get along great on our little planet, but how about going beyond that?
My solution is a medieval one, have apprentices just like in the middle ages. Co-op's and industrial internships are a step, but how about taking it a step further and developing a system whereby people learn on the job while they are being educated? I believe Germany has this model. One side effect is that people have less choice later in life to decide which career path to follow, but do we have a better way now? As another side effect though, such an alternate system might might not do as well in generating people who sell themselves
So in other words, instead of building a user-interface lab to track and observe reactions, Microsoft is using test users not associated with Microsoft, per say, saving some money while at the same time gathering what could argued to be private user data. Win for Microsoft but a loss for the consumer. I wonder if it is entirely modular so that they can simply just remove it.
Isn't your idea equivalent to no government? The idea behind government is to pool resources. Sure and who is charging for the service. Probably according to you it is not a government. Who then, is in charge of making sure we aren't held hostage on a road tax? Environmental tax? Nice idea. The whole idea behind protecting the environment is to foresee a common problem, then work towards a goal that will mitigate that problem. If we collect an "environment tax" for a so-called problem, how do we know it is going to solve that "right" problem? Besides isn't the whole idea behind a corporation is that they are fallible, that is they can die. If one of your issues suddenly become moot, we have a whole infrastructure dedicated to collecting those taxes and providing the service = less change. Most sane people (and I hate to label others the opposite) know that pooling of resources and hence some form of "socialization" is the best way to get things done, whether it be money from a general populace to an owner who prioritizes, or a government that collects taxes to do things that benefit others, and themselves. Suppose we need a road, or other infrastructure that benefits both you and your competitors, but building it would transfer wealth away from your business, would you build it? Probably not because it would put you at an immediate competitive disadvantage. Want to form a bigger group to get it done, no problem, there are bigger competitors. No one wants to be a sacrificial lamb. Can you see an answer to that problem?
In other news pizza is a vegetable.
Scientific consensus has not received a bad reputation. The scientific method has existed for hundreds of years. However, sometimes science makes people mad for the conclusions it has drawn. I bet you that "Americans for Progress" would not even venture to understand science. Others want it to be wrong, but they can't use the scientific method to disprove science. Flaimbat of a summary. Even for those who do not understand science, let us not try to weaken its conclusions by acting like it "has gotten a bad reputation".
A reputation is a little like science in that it takes several observations to come up with a reputation because there is something to it as opposed to an inkling or a hunch. The title "Some people have a hunch that science is not sound.", however false, would be more true but the real story here is "Some people want science to have a bad reputation because it serves their interest".