That in no way was being racist. That was admitting an honest and understandable feeling at the expense of being politically correct. And if I worked at such a place I would quit.
NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.
Maybe they got tired of having to qualify every eBook price with "This price was set by the publisher".
Want to know what's wrong with the eBook market? Just check out this page; $15 for a poorly scanned version of a book that was written more than 40 years ago, that's available new in paperback and even hardcover for less. Seriously? Who the hell comes up with these pricing models? Even as a huge eBook fan there's been plenty of books that I've passed on because I just can't justify the cost for a digital copy, even ignoring the fact that the digital copy is DRM'd to Amazon's tool set.
Then go buy the hardcover version, and leave the free market to correct itself.
Sony made a very wrong assumption with the ps3 and how "gamers will pay it"-type attitude. There have been other, even more atrocious failures in the past as well with expensive consoles (Neo-Geo). Now, Apple has shown that the high-price tech niche market exists in other arenas, but history seems to predict that trying the Apple "business-as-usual" style here would be a humbling experience for Apple.
ID is a potential premise that helps to make sense of the model. Not assuming ID is just as much of a premise. You can not scientifically prove ID, but to say that science disproves ID is itself unscientific. Just because something cannot be proven (indeed, no axiom can by definition) doesn't mean it should never be mentioned in academia.
Never mention the words "intelligent design" if you ever plan on getting tenure at a public university. I'm not talking about supporting it, I'm talking about even seriously investigating it at all. Then there's all the politics involved for each discipline for publishing in journals. Hardly scientific.
1: I and many others who would constitute the "99%" do not stand with them. They need to redo their math.
2: No one forced anyone to take any loan. Personal financial responsibility doesn't go away just because you aren't rich.
3: No one is entitled to give you a job.
4: If wall street was breaking the law, then go picket the SEC for not doing its job. If they were not, then go picket the SEC for not doing its job.
5: Much of the 1% had nothing to do with mortgage crisis.
Yeah, I am in complete agreement with the above posters. I've had the same experience as well with my research as well, and it's very frustrating to be subjected to this sort of system. To be honest I'm waiting for the nail in the coffin to come for ALL taxpayer research and completely do away with this system. Those journals are just leaches on the academic system, and nothing more. Since the government has oversight of which research ideas are worthy of funding, I don't see why they can't be in charge of determining whether the results from that funding is worthy of publication.
SF already charges an arm and two legs for parking downtown, and they want to collect more fees? If this gets out to SF residents, these guys may not want to wear their Streetline shirts when walking around town, and especially around cars with tickets on them.
...where the US higher educational system is going to have to realize that the current model isn't fiscally sustainable. As long as your tuition rates are growing faster than people's income, SOMETHING'S gotta eventually give. They'll have to see that all the extra bells and whistles that are currently considered "essential" to the university aren't so much so, and they'll just have to pear it down to just boring-old-teaching.
'He considers this research in "Gravitational Aesthetics."' Really? "Research" in a topic you just make up? It appears that this art department doesn't have any problem allowing gratuitous language to give motivation for what they do.
There's no problem as long as the discovery is publicly released. Then it's prior art, and no one could file a patent. Your scenario would only occur if the discovered something, didn't patent it, and didn't tell anyone about it either.
Instead of a touchscreen interface, do it with Kinect. Even if it fails horribly, imagine... the corporate world having to suddenly get off their fat butts and dance around like apes for 8 hours a day. Obesity in America - now only a problem with Apple users.
There's a big difference between being a copy of something and being poor quality. His point about the China analogy is that people dole out the extra cash for the name, so you shouldn't price things assuming you have a name like Apple when you don't. However, that doesn't imply that people wouldn't be willing to pay a smaller amount for a no-name that works just as well.
Personally, "best-bang-for-my-buck" is always my favorite brand.
Companies that deal with people's medical information already have to follow a (much) stricter regulation - ones that can potentially carry criminal sentences. And even stricter still are companies that carry classified information.
Agreed. This is an ancient, ongoing problem with FOSS, and IMO the #1 area they could do themselves a huge favor by improving. I mean, they cheer any anytime someone joins and contributes to the FOSS bandwagon, and boos anytime someone succumbs to "the man". It's baffling how they can't seem to put two and two together a lot of the time.
Usually when people go from having controversial views or methods, to having controversial views or methods and don't mind having innocent people die along the way, they go from the label of "activist" to "terrorist".
Well the government in fact doesn't own the tech now, and they certainly could have put this in as a condition for getting their money, so it seems that the govt had every expectation of this company succeeding. Otherwise, if they were going to spend money this on solar, they would have dolled out research grants to whoever, like NREL. So the govt doesn't own the tech, and yes, end their careers today. Not because the idea of green energy is a bad idea by itself, but because they've shown to be bad stewards of money. We are no closer now to competing with China than before we lost this money to a failed business, plain and simple.
But I think the real question then is why did the govt. pump $0.5B into THIS green company, as opposed to one that would stay afloat? Remember, they stated the reason for bankruptcy is that they couldn't compete with larger rivals. The real critique here isn't between green vs. non-green. It's good investment vs. bad investment.
I would say that removing any fear of recursion or any other coding technique should not depend on the language taught. Otherwise, that's a fault in the educational system.
My experience in stepping into the real world summed up to having all the academic credentials under my belt with experience in (functional) languages that no one cares about. I had a tiny bit of academic experience in java and some in C, but that's it. This literally cost me at least one position when applying for jobs - not having enough experience in "real-world" languages (specifically C++ in that case). They actually told me this when I asked why I was passed over for being hired. It was very frustrating, but eye-opening as well as far as how well academia prepares their students for a career. The first two weeks of my current job was a crash-course in C++.
Academia has a tendency to raise their noses at things like this, but it's academia that's out of touch with the outside world, and not the other way around. I know I've heard about industry studies saying as much.
I was taught Scheme as my "first" programming language in my CS undergrad. Now, having done grad school and into the real world, I can't say that learning Scheme has done one shred of tangible good other than (insert some ivory-tower-sounding argument here).
I'll just say this - it's usually pretty obvious when a group or school of thought has little to no accountability outside of themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
That in no way was being racist. That was admitting an honest and understandable feeling at the expense of being politically correct. And if I worked at such a place I would quit.
It was after he was unceremoniously fired from NPR, and the reasons for it, that makes it a skeleton.
NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.
Maybe they got tired of having to qualify every eBook price with "This price was set by the publisher".
Want to know what's wrong with the eBook market? Just check out this page; $15 for a poorly scanned version of a book that was written more than 40 years ago, that's available new in paperback and even hardcover for less. Seriously? Who the hell comes up with these pricing models? Even as a huge eBook fan there's been plenty of books that I've passed on because I just can't justify the cost for a digital copy, even ignoring the fact that the digital copy is DRM'd to Amazon's tool set.
Then go buy the hardcover version, and leave the free market to correct itself.
This seems like something hackers would want try to do. They had better be careful on how they would move forward implementing this.
Sony made a very wrong assumption with the ps3 and how "gamers will pay it"-type attitude. There have been other, even more atrocious failures in the past as well with expensive consoles (Neo-Geo). Now, Apple has shown that the high-price tech niche market exists in other arenas, but history seems to predict that trying the Apple "business-as-usual" style here would be a humbling experience for Apple.
ID is a potential premise that helps to make sense of the model. Not assuming ID is just as much of a premise. You can not scientifically prove ID, but to say that science disproves ID is itself unscientific. Just because something cannot be proven (indeed, no axiom can by definition) doesn't mean it should never be mentioned in academia.
Never mention the words "intelligent design" if you ever plan on getting tenure at a public university. I'm not talking about supporting it, I'm talking about even seriously investigating it at all. Then there's all the politics involved for each discipline for publishing in journals. Hardly scientific.
1: I and many others who would constitute the "99%" do not stand with them. They need to redo their math. 2: No one forced anyone to take any loan. Personal financial responsibility doesn't go away just because you aren't rich. 3: No one is entitled to give you a job. 4: If wall street was breaking the law, then go picket the SEC for not doing its job. If they were not, then go picket the SEC for not doing its job. 5: Much of the 1% had nothing to do with mortgage crisis.
Yeah, I am in complete agreement with the above posters. I've had the same experience as well with my research as well, and it's very frustrating to be subjected to this sort of system. To be honest I'm waiting for the nail in the coffin to come for ALL taxpayer research and completely do away with this system. Those journals are just leaches on the academic system, and nothing more. Since the government has oversight of which research ideas are worthy of funding, I don't see why they can't be in charge of determining whether the results from that funding is worthy of publication.
SF already charges an arm and two legs for parking downtown, and they want to collect more fees? If this gets out to SF residents, these guys may not want to wear their Streetline shirts when walking around town, and especially around cars with tickets on them.
...where the US higher educational system is going to have to realize that the current model isn't fiscally sustainable. As long as your tuition rates are growing faster than people's income, SOMETHING'S gotta eventually give. They'll have to see that all the extra bells and whistles that are currently considered "essential" to the university aren't so much so, and they'll just have to pear it down to just boring-old-teaching.
'He considers this research in "Gravitational Aesthetics."' Really? "Research" in a topic you just make up? It appears that this art department doesn't have any problem allowing gratuitous language to give motivation for what they do.
There's no problem as long as the discovery is publicly released. Then it's prior art, and no one could file a patent. Your scenario would only occur if the discovered something, didn't patent it, and didn't tell anyone about it either.
Instead of a touchscreen interface, do it with Kinect. Even if it fails horribly, imagine... the corporate world having to suddenly get off their fat butts and dance around like apes for 8 hours a day. Obesity in America - now only a problem with Apple users.
There's a big difference between being a copy of something and being poor quality. His point about the China analogy is that people dole out the extra cash for the name, so you shouldn't price things assuming you have a name like Apple when you don't. However, that doesn't imply that people wouldn't be willing to pay a smaller amount for a no-name that works just as well. Personally, "best-bang-for-my-buck" is always my favorite brand.
Companies that deal with people's medical information already have to follow a (much) stricter regulation - ones that can potentially carry criminal sentences. And even stricter still are companies that carry classified information.
This should be done on a regular basis anyway, and that by a third party.
Agreed. This is an ancient, ongoing problem with FOSS, and IMO the #1 area they could do themselves a huge favor by improving. I mean, they cheer any anytime someone joins and contributes to the FOSS bandwagon, and boos anytime someone succumbs to "the man". It's baffling how they can't seem to put two and two together a lot of the time.
Perhaps, but it still doesn't change the obvious statement of disregard for human life.
Usually when people go from having controversial views or methods, to having controversial views or methods and don't mind having innocent people die along the way, they go from the label of "activist" to "terrorist".
Well the government in fact doesn't own the tech now, and they certainly could have put this in as a condition for getting their money, so it seems that the govt had every expectation of this company succeeding. Otherwise, if they were going to spend money this on solar, they would have dolled out research grants to whoever, like NREL. So the govt doesn't own the tech, and yes, end their careers today. Not because the idea of green energy is a bad idea by itself, but because they've shown to be bad stewards of money. We are no closer now to competing with China than before we lost this money to a failed business, plain and simple.
But I think the real question then is why did the govt. pump $0.5B into THIS green company, as opposed to one that would stay afloat? Remember, they stated the reason for bankruptcy is that they couldn't compete with larger rivals. The real critique here isn't between green vs. non-green. It's good investment vs. bad investment.
I would say that removing any fear of recursion or any other coding technique should not depend on the language taught. Otherwise, that's a fault in the educational system. My experience in stepping into the real world summed up to having all the academic credentials under my belt with experience in (functional) languages that no one cares about. I had a tiny bit of academic experience in java and some in C, but that's it. This literally cost me at least one position when applying for jobs - not having enough experience in "real-world" languages (specifically C++ in that case). They actually told me this when I asked why I was passed over for being hired. It was very frustrating, but eye-opening as well as far as how well academia prepares their students for a career. The first two weeks of my current job was a crash-course in C++. Academia has a tendency to raise their noses at things like this, but it's academia that's out of touch with the outside world, and not the other way around. I know I've heard about industry studies saying as much.
I was taught Scheme as my "first" programming language in my CS undergrad. Now, having done grad school and into the real world, I can't say that learning Scheme has done one shred of tangible good other than (insert some ivory-tower-sounding argument here). I'll just say this - it's usually pretty obvious when a group or school of thought has little to no accountability outside of themselves.