You can't put the cart before the horse and expect to get anywhere. Pay peanuts, and you'll get monkeys. You can hardly expect intelligent people to rally around the profession so that you will respect them and pay them more.
We are cutting funding to education (or at least not expanding it to meet demand), we are cutting back on wellfare, and we are doing everything we can to automate low skill tasks.
Good points. To further you point on automation, consider this. The nimrod in budgeting is given a choice of
A. Increasing payroll tax expenditure by hiring more staff
B. Decrease overall tax liability through depreciation deductions associated with capital expenditure.
Option B is a much easier sell to the board of directors, even though long term savings are dubious.
Isn't it interesting how the people with the greatest responsibility, ie the teachers who teach the youth that will provide the economy as we age, are paid so dismally. Says a lot about America's priorities.
Many fat middle aged Americans can't walk or run either fast or for an extended period of time, but they don't get away with disability allowance for that.
But then the fat Americans don't rely on walking and running to earn their income.
A small minority of jobs require being able to type or write extensively.
gowen didn't make an analogy. gowen presented a specific example of a concept, ie that you can model a phenomena without representing every instance of it.
Plus, your reply actually backs gowen's argument. There are positive and negative feedbacks. An example of a negative feedback is increased cloud cover absorbing and reflecting sunlight before it reaches the earth. You can model this over time periods without modelling every instace of every cloud (and every cosmic ray hitting an H20 molecule, for that matter.)
BTW, it is only possible to model paper falling through air using generalized conditions. It would be impossible to model air flow by calculating the interactions of every single particle that might affect the paper.
Sorry, there is no conspiracy. What you're asserting does happen to a degree, but not to the level your suggesting, even for global climate research. Believe it or not, people actually carry out research for noble reasons. This is a serious issue. That's why money is spent on it.
Remember, researchers are bright people. If money was their aim, they wouldn't have gone into academics. Their main asset is their credibility first, and their ability to generate research dollars second.
You must be think of entrepreneurs and executives, where the ability to generate cash is first and credibility doesn't even enter into it.
Sometimes when humans participate in a debate, we inadvertently use phrases incorrectly or we purposely use terms which imply things we don't want to bother to say.
So when our friend says, global warming is real, he means global warming as unnaturally influenced by human activity is real. So, it is not the case that the poster can't distinguish between facts and conclusions, it's just that he didn't bother to spell everything out.
I'd also like to point out that the mechanics of evolution are poorly understood. Do you care to take on Darwinism?
I'm no chemist, and I don't know if cosmic rays turn O2 into O3, but even if they do, they don't seem to be doing it fast enough!
Yes, but in the long run, research into and implementation of cleaner production of energy could save money. There may be a short term redirection of capital, but that would be temporary. It's the vested interests of established capital that are worried about Kyoto or some variation. The increase in R & D and capital investment might actually be an economic boon.
I must say I disagree with the theme of your post. You seem to be saying that, in the face of incomplete information and noise, we should do nothing; and that, given even worse things could happen, what are we worried about?
One. Given the ambiguity of the data, we should err on the side of caution, rather than pandering to established capital.
Two. The fact that I may die of food poisoning tomorrow is no justification for driving while intoxicated today. The only link between global warming and asteroid impact are that they both affect climate! The fact that we can do nothing about asteroids should not in the slightest way influence how we approach (possible) global warming.
... expressed by the EU, trying to throw it's new, generally left-leaning politcal weight around
What rubbish. Do only right-leaning political structures get to throw their weight around?
Yes, beholden. A company cannot raize the land, because that would devalue adjacent land. It must act responsibly even though raizing the land might be in the shareholder's interest.
So, you see, the company has obligations to non-shareholders as well. Paying for use of resources is fine, but remember, monetary systems are contrived and have meaning only in that people agree to them. So, mere payment is insufficient because the company has on ongoing interest in keeping the monetary system operating smoothly. The company is required to do it's part for maintaining a sound monetary system.
Responsibilities do not end with at the close of a financial transaction, so the fact that you've paid your taxes doesn't mean you're absolved of your obligations to a community.
Lastly, air is a national (indeed, even global) resource. Companies are obliged to limit the amount of toxins they put into it.
Oh, so you expose a corporation's fraudulent and reckless behaviour and you think they're not going to come after you? Never exploited minorities or an underclass?
Think again!
Corporations love a homogeneous and consenting public. It's so easy to market to.
As it should be. Nobody else owns the company, so why should anybody else have a say in who they are trying to please?
Because the company uses national resources, whether it be timber, water, toxic waste dumps, or the brains and talents produced by the education system. Companies do not exist in a vacuum and are indeed beholden to the public. It is only that, in balance, the public is better off with the concentrations of capital that it lets those concentrations exist. I think it was John Adams who said that.
Ah, yes, Melbourne, one of the world's great cities. The restaurants on Lygon Street are fantastic. The Italian food is great, but don't forget the culinary contributions of the Thais, Indonesians, Malaysians, Turks, Indians, Greeks, and dare I say, Brits.
Australian and American cultures are similiar in many respects. They both honor self-reliance. They both have great literary traditions. However, the cultures differ in (at least) two fundamental ways. Australians are not as obsessed with money. Success is recognized in many forms. For example, the Wallabies is the Australian national rugy union team (rugby union as opposed to rugby league). This is a semi-pro team that boasts long, proud careers and garners international acclaim. Secondly, Australians are more inclusive and honor contributions to the community. A national motto is, "Everyone gets a fair go." Fred Hallows was a great Australian.
Notably, Australians have higher patronage rates of libraries, gallaries, museums, and stage productions. Here are some other bits and pieces:
Dame Joan Sutherland, widely recognized as the 20th century's premier diva, is Australian.
Architecture: Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
The literary offerings of David Malouf, Peter Carey, and Patrick White.
Australian aborignal painting.
Cinema, including Picnic at Hanging Rock, Walkabout, Priscilla: Queen of the Desert, The Castle and even Mad Max.
Comedy, including the D-gen, Roy and HG, and Dame Edna.
The National Art Museum, with works by Marcel Duchamp and Jackson Pollack (purchased back in the seventies, probably when you but a gleam in your father's eye).
Horse racing and camel racing (no less).
Yacht racing, including the world famous Sydney to Hobart.
And finally, a mentality that loves larrikinsm, improvisation, and good-natured humour in the face of adversity.
The list goes on and on. I suggest you're quite mistaken about the nature of Australian culture.
Oh yes, let's not forget that it was the Australian culture that gave us the 2000 Summer Olympic Games, arguably one of most memorable games of the modern Olympic movement.
I couldn't agree more. Taxes pay for roads, airports, waste facilities, etc. They provide the infrastructure for the Universities, even private ones (albeit indirectly), which provide the private sector with educated graduates. Anti-tax proponents always try the "bad apple spoiling the barrel" argument, but this is truly a poor characterisation of the reality of taxes.
Landlords love tax reduction. Their tenants can pay more rent for the same real estate!
you're free to shop around to get the best coverage for your money
Until, god forbid, you actually get sick and use your insurance for what you purchased it for in the first place.
Good luck renewing your insurance should you ever find yourself in such dire straits. Medical insurance is a scam. It amounts to private companies taxing the public. They provide even worse service than government bureaucracies.
I am a former expatriate, but never worried about the ex-patriot deal as I'd already worked that one out long ago. But clearly with different criteria from what you've applied. Now I wish to be expatriated again: there's too much rail kill from the market propaganda train.
Thank you for this excellent summary of science and proof, and the distinction between science and "scientific creationism". You've captured the essence of the issue that many posters have missed.
In defense of science students, science as a formal method of investigation is just hard to get. Our brains aren't wired to work that way. For me, I didn't get it till well into my university training.
One problem is that so many people, including those in positions of power and influence, *never* get it.
There is a distinction. A mathematician in India will develop the same principles of logic as a mathematician in England. But the religious faiths and practices of their respective cultures vary widely.
Furthermore, the premises of mathematics lead to theorems with predictive power. Ie, I can use maths to predict the position of planets well into the future. This is different from faith, which generally is used as a basis for a system of living one's ethical and moral life.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't put the cart before the horse and expect to get anywhere. Pay peanuts, and you'll get monkeys. You can hardly expect intelligent people to rally around the profession so that you will respect them and pay them more.
Good points. To further you point on automation, consider this. The nimrod in budgeting is given a choice of
Option B is a much easier sell to the board of directors, even though long term savings are dubious.
Isn't it interesting how the people with the greatest responsibility, ie the teachers who teach the youth that will provide the economy as we age, are paid so dismally. Says a lot about America's priorities.
But then the fat Americans don't rely on walking and running to earn their income.
Maybe on your planet...
Moi? Je n'ai jamais. Allez bourgoisie!
gowen didn't make an analogy. gowen presented a specific example of a concept, ie that you can model a phenomena without representing every instance of it.
Plus, your reply actually backs gowen's argument. There are positive and negative feedbacks. An example of a negative feedback is increased cloud cover absorbing and reflecting sunlight before it reaches the earth. You can model this over time periods without modelling every instace of every cloud (and every cosmic ray hitting an H20 molecule, for that matter.)
BTW, it is only possible to model paper falling through air using generalized conditions. It would be impossible to model air flow by calculating the interactions of every single particle that might affect the paper.
I get it now.
Sorry, there is no conspiracy. What you're asserting does happen to a degree, but not to the level your suggesting, even for global climate research. Believe it or not, people actually carry out research for noble reasons. This is a serious issue. That's why money is spent on it.
Remember, researchers are bright people. If money was their aim, they wouldn't have gone into academics. Their main asset is their credibility first, and their ability to generate research dollars second.
You must be think of entrepreneurs and executives, where the ability to generate cash is first and credibility doesn't even enter into it.
That'd be fine, except they're chasing the same dollars. The pie is only so big, so academics love to see their peers demonstrated wrong.
Sometimes when humans participate in a debate, we inadvertently use phrases incorrectly or we purposely use terms which imply things we don't want to bother to say.
So when our friend says, global warming is real, he means global warming as unnaturally influenced by human activity is real. So, it is not the case that the poster can't distinguish between facts and conclusions, it's just that he didn't bother to spell everything out.
I'd also like to point out that the mechanics of evolution are poorly understood. Do you care to take on Darwinism?
I'm no chemist, and I don't know if cosmic rays turn O2 into O3, but even if they do, they don't seem to be doing it fast enough!
Yes, but in the long run, research into and implementation of cleaner production of energy could save money. There may be a short term redirection of capital, but that would be temporary. It's the vested interests of established capital that are worried about Kyoto or some variation. The increase in R & D and capital investment might actually be an economic boon.
I must say I disagree with the theme of your post. You seem to be saying that, in the face of incomplete information and noise, we should do nothing; and that, given even worse things could happen, what are we worried about?
One. Given the ambiguity of the data, we should err on the side of caution, rather than pandering to established capital.
Two. The fact that I may die of food poisoning tomorrow is no justification for driving while intoxicated today. The only link between global warming and asteroid impact are that they both affect climate! The fact that we can do nothing about asteroids should not in the slightest way influence how we approach (possible) global warming.
What rubbish. Do only right-leaning political structures get to throw their weight around?
Troll Alert! Beep Beep Beep!
This is a troll. Nothing to see. Please move on.
Petty theives were sent to Australia. The embezzlers, murderers, and rapists were imprisoned in England.
You're a troll, I know, but I wanted to make the point.
I claim the right to be a dope now and then. 8^)
Apologies.
I clearly made erroneous conclusions as a result of not reading your post without biases and assumptions.
Again, my apologies.
Yes, beholden. A company cannot raize the land, because that would devalue adjacent land. It must act responsibly even though raizing the land might be in the shareholder's interest.
So, you see, the company has obligations to non-shareholders as well. Paying for use of resources is fine, but remember, monetary systems are contrived and have meaning only in that people agree to them. So, mere payment is insufficient because the company has on ongoing interest in keeping the monetary system operating smoothly. The company is required to do it's part for maintaining a sound monetary system.
Responsibilities do not end with at the close of a financial transaction, so the fact that you've paid your taxes doesn't mean you're absolved of your obligations to a community.
Lastly, air is a national (indeed, even global) resource. Companies are obliged to limit the amount of toxins they put into it.
Oh, so you expose a corporation's fraudulent and reckless behaviour and you think they're not going to come after you? Never exploited minorities or an underclass?
Think again!
Corporations love a homogeneous and consenting public. It's so easy to market to.
Because the company uses national resources, whether it be timber, water, toxic waste dumps, or the brains and talents produced by the education system. Companies do not exist in a vacuum and are indeed beholden to the public. It is only that, in balance, the public is better off with the concentrations of capital that it lets those concentrations exist. I think it was John Adams who said that.
I believe it was Royal Dutch Shell that flew in the death squad to machine gun local demonstrators in Nigeria.
'nuff said
Ah, yes, Melbourne, one of the world's great cities. The restaurants on Lygon Street are fantastic. The Italian food is great, but don't forget the culinary contributions of the Thais, Indonesians, Malaysians, Turks, Indians, Greeks, and dare I say, Brits.
Australian and American cultures are similiar in many respects. They both honor self-reliance. They both have great literary traditions. However, the cultures differ in (at least) two fundamental ways. Australians are not as obsessed with money. Success is recognized in many forms. For example, the Wallabies is the Australian national rugy union team (rugby union as opposed to rugby league). This is a semi-pro team that boasts long, proud careers and garners international acclaim. Secondly, Australians are more inclusive and honor contributions to the community. A national motto is, "Everyone gets a fair go." Fred Hallows was a great Australian.
Notably, Australians have higher patronage rates of libraries, gallaries, museums, and stage productions. Here are some other bits and pieces:
The list goes on and on. I suggest you're quite mistaken about the nature of Australian culture.
Oh yes, let's not forget that it was the Australian culture that gave us the 2000 Summer Olympic Games, arguably one of most memorable games of the modern Olympic movement.
Your ignorance of Australian culture is impressive...
I couldn't agree more. Taxes pay for roads, airports, waste facilities, etc. They provide the infrastructure for the Universities, even private ones (albeit indirectly), which provide the private sector with educated graduates. Anti-tax proponents always try the "bad apple spoiling the barrel" argument, but this is truly a poor characterisation of the reality of taxes.
Landlords love tax reduction. Their tenants can pay more rent for the same real estate!
Until, god forbid, you actually get sick and use your insurance for what you purchased it for in the first place.
Good luck renewing your insurance should you ever find yourself in such dire straits. Medical insurance is a scam. It amounts to private companies taxing the public. They provide even worse service than government bureaucracies.
You have expressed in words what I've been thinking for so long now. Well done.
...you're a pragmatist yet divorced from reality.
I am a former expatriate, but never worried about the ex-patriot deal as I'd already worked that one out long ago. But clearly with different criteria from what you've applied. Now I wish to be expatriated again: there's too much rail kill from the market propaganda train.
PS -- We've booked your room at the Disney Hotel.
Thank you for this excellent summary of science and proof, and the distinction between science and "scientific creationism". You've captured the essence of the issue that many posters have missed.
In defense of science students, science as a formal method of investigation is just hard to get. Our brains aren't wired to work that way. For me, I didn't get it till well into my university training.
One problem is that so many people, including those in positions of power and influence, *never* get it.
There is a distinction. A mathematician in India will develop the same principles of logic as a mathematician in England. But the religious faiths and practices of their respective cultures vary widely.
Furthermore, the premises of mathematics lead to theorems with predictive power. Ie, I can use maths to predict the position of planets well into the future. This is different from faith, which generally is used as a basis for a system of living one's ethical and moral life.
Both are useful, but very different.