And why people from all over the world pay big bucks to go to college here as well?
To be fair, the university system and in general, colleges in the U.S., are wholly separate from what the OP was referring to, i.e. public schools K-12.
Unfortunately, there is a very major force coming from Texas. A few yokels in Texas take school text books and cut out every thing they don't like about history.
What ends up happening is that, since Texas buys a lot of textbooks and buys them early, textbook makers don't cater to other state curriculum nearly as much, and other states end up taking the same textbooks.
It's crazy... a very small group of people get to change history with no scientific process or regard to actual education.
The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school....
There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
Although the numbers may not be correct for your particular timeline, the intent is still correct. The more urban states pay more federal taxes and receive less, as opposed to the rural states which pay less and receive more.
Not only was this true in the last decade, it is going to be true in the next decade as well (well, 99% chance it will be).
Such "handouts" (not my word) does not account for the 23 billion to 78 billion ballooning debt (which can mostly be prescribed to wildly unreasonable pension promises), but it certainly does account for a part of California's tax burden vs. Oregon's.
I work 30-35 hours/week and make 107K + ~15% bonus. The trick is that I'm better at what I do than everyone else around me, and I can do it in half the time.
String s = "49:20:61:6d:20:74:68:65:20:41:64:68:65:72:65:6e:74:73:20:6f:66:20:74:68:65:20:52:65:70:65:61:74:65:64:20:4d:65:6d:65";
int i = 0;
while (i s.length())
{
String n = s.substring(i, i + 2);
System.out.print((char) Integer.parseInt(n, 16));
i += 3;
}
This crazy dude is serious. Click on his name and look at his posts. 1. He really thinks it is big pharma that has "silenced" him on Slashdot, when in fact it is his negative troll ratings. 2. He has "Dr." in front of his name. As a person coming from a family of doctors, I can assure you that no credible medical institution in the U.S. would give the title of doctor to chiropractors. It's like Dr. Phil calling himself by the Dr. title to give himself more credibility (Dr. Phil is NOT a doctor). It is a pseudo-science. My sister's personal take on it is "if it makes you feel better, sure, but I would never treat any medical condition with a chiropractor." 3. This guy, who has the title of "Dr." in front of his name, thinks that diseases weren't cured by vaccines, but by CHIROPRACTIC.
Maybe Bill Clinton was right... someone needs to fact check some of these crazies.
I don't get what your point is... you said you're not willing to pay it, and in the same sentence you say you pay it, which therefore means you ARE willing to pay it.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your hatred of Fox News. I'm sorry the truth in the real world doesn't match the fantasies you've dreamed up in your head. I guess if the people you hate are not evil enough to justify your hatred, you have to make stuff up to fill the void. The sad part is that you have managed to convince yourself of something that doesn't match reality.
You actually had a valid and interesting point about how people unfairly immediately dismiss Fox News as always handling "news" without factual basis, and that other organizations have some similar faults as well.
Then you went into the above tirade which is a common theme in conservative psychology: liberals are hateful and liars, but not conservatives. You didn't have any evidence to come a reasonable conclusion of this broad stereotype either, it's sorta like saying "niggers are lazy" and "faggots don't have good parents". Interestingly enough, "make stuff up to fill the void" is exactly what the original post is about... but you are making up facts about a broad stereotype (liberals) to match your OWN beliefs, without regard to reason.
Even after it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a fake, didn't he insist that it was authentic?
No, he didn't. When it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a fake, he apologized and retired after a lifetime career of journalism. I dare say no modern newscaster would ever quit over one single mistake. I admit that's an opinion, but a reasonable opinion because nowadays viewers don't regard newscasters in as high regard as they did decades before.
if you start from a less efficient process and go up, you may not exceed the efficiency of a more efficient process
Which more efficient process are you talking about?
So the amount you can 'get from a solar panel' may not change at all. Which is, if you read the article, actually the case here.
I did read the article. It didn't say anything about what you mention (that the solar panel will not generate any more electricity). I'm having trouble following you. It seems that the article is stating that solar panels will generate 80% more electricity using the same amount of space.
Of course you didn't actually read the article, you just wanted to post first. No matter what the X is in "80% of X", this still means that you'll be able to get 80% more power from a solar panel.
With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency of conventional planar structure of the same materials.
I am not in any way saying corporations or rich people are evil (or good). I'm just saying that the more money you have, the less percentage of taxes of your income you will likely pay.
False. Because the source code is freely available, anyone who wants to can take the whole thing and support it themselves.
That's apples and oranges. Open source, whether or not freely available or not, DOES lose support. The fact that someone can someone can download the source and change it does not constitute support, such as regular bug fixes and answers on forums. In fact, lots of open source software has no support at all... you can take it or leave it, and figure it out for yourself.
Now, just look on github or similar places for open source software, and you'll find that most of the software projects are just source code, with no support at all.
Exactly. I'm not sure you were being serious or not, but if people are buying the 3D stuff then the market will continue to create it. Maybe it's just a fad, but I don't see the idea that it's being pushed on consumers who don't want it as being valid. Some people buy 3D TVs, and some people don't. So what? The article says "Avoid 3D wherever possible". Well guess what? Some people, like myself, already do! And if other people want to continue to see 3D movies, then let them.
One of the huge advantages of adopting an open source operating system is to avoid such nonsense as the forcing of obsolescence on technology. For example, upgrade to the latest Ubuntu, say, isn't an issue because it is free and if the hardware won't go there you can just stick with the old version, safe in the knowledge that developers aren't actively trying to find reasons to make their latest offerings not run on it.
This is ridiculous. Open source software loses support in the same manner as closed source software. Much open source software loses its support quicker, for various reasons such as developers losing interest, not having time, or inability to work on it due to not being paid. Open source OSes develop new technology which new programs won't run without just as easily as closed source software. There is no reason or evidence that developers are or aren't actively trying to find reasons to make their latest offerings not run on either Linux or Windows.
Yes, I understand that Internet Explorer 10 does not run on Windows XP. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that the reason behind it is that the developers actively tried to find reasons to make that happen, and there is no evidence that this phenomenon is worse with closed source software. (I don't really know why it doesn't run on WinXP; I figure it uses APIs that are only available in later versions of Windows) I also bet you can find *nix software that does not run on old versions of *nix. (I don't have any examples, though)
A lot of commentors here have discussed lots of different interesting topics, but I thought I might offer this advice.
All things being equal, you are better of salary-wise to leave than to wait for promotions.
Not only does my experience along with many other people I know confirm this, I know more than one headhunter who also confirm this. I hate to tell you an anecdote about my own personal experience, but it won't hurt: every time I have been laid off (twice now and I'm not even 30) I've received a massive pay raise. I just recently got promoted 2 weeks ago and got a mere 8% pay raise. When I have been laid off I've gotten a 20% and 30% pay raise.
He also founded the W3C. He's much more the inventor of the world-wide web and a widespread hyper-linking technology that anybody else can claim to be. By one hell of a long distance.
That's a good point.
On a different note, I wish he had come up with a better acronym. "The World Wide Web is the only thing I know of whose shortened form takes three times longer to say than what it's short for" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web)
I hate it when I see the phrase "inventor of the web", etc. There are so many other people that invented the "Internet" as we know it. All he made a rather sucky protocol, and was just at the right place at the right time. He didn't invent anything related to the way information travels throughout the Internet... he just created a protocol using hypertext with items such as bold (note that he did NOT invent hypertext, either!!!!)
I'm not saying he's a bad guy or did anything bad. What I'm saying is that the credit for the "invention" he made is super, super, super overblown.
GIMP is infinitely harder to use than Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro (I think it's called Corel Draw now). GIMP has a non-intuitive interface, and its features are hidden away. Doing something as simple as drawing a rounded rectangle in GIMP is a long, difficult process.
You don't have a right for food ergo you don't have a right to live.
This is incorrect logic; A does not imply B here.
So in short natural rights are as follows:... right to do anything you want to anyone you want...
What? No, there is no such thing as a right to do anything you want to anyone. There could only be a right that prevents others from doing anything they want to you, such as murdering you.
Education and information are the things that are mandatory for a person to be a part of society. Without society people would have never multiplied as much. A person cast out of society will die. Nature is a bitch that wants to kill you, no matter what the hippies say about "mother earth". So having basic education==being part of society==right to live.
That is bad logic. And some facts are wrong, too. Without society people would have never multiplied as much This has nothing to do with rights. All this means is that it is better for people to be educated in order for people to multiply at higher rates. A person cast out of society will die. Not true. An outcast person will not necessarily die. There are a lot of assumptions to that statement that could never be applied to all humans. Nature is a bitch that wants to kill youI can see how survival could be used in a case for natural rights, but I'm not sure how it fits into what you're saying here. no matter what the hippies say about "mother earth" Not only is this completely pointless and has no bearing on the argument, but just because hippies "like mother earth" doesn't make them think there is no natural danger to humanity on this planet. So having basic education==being part of society==right to live. This deductive reasoning has no merit at all. Why is having basic education equal to being part of a society? There is a general correlation, but it isn't 1:1. How is being part of society equal to a right to live? You still have one when you aren't a part of a society.
So in short natural rights are... [also] known as "survival instinct".
Absolutely not! My survival instinct tells me to kill and steal, but such instincts are not my natural rights.
You are absolutely correct about your assessment of what rights are. +1!
That being said, if 51% of people vote to legislate that "sugar is a vegetable", that can happen. In the same manner, if the U.S. constitution is amended to say that "Education and internet connectivity are rights", are education and internet connectivity still not rights in the U.S.?
If you have enough money in the bank, you don't have to pay taxes.
You obviously aren't American (or one of the herd) if you believe that crap.
Well, in America the richer you are, the better equipped you are for tax evasion. You probably also pay less of a percentage of your income than a middle class person. For example, Warren Buffet pays around 17.7 percent and his secretary around 30.0 percent (See "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary" at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)
At a corporate level instead of a personal level, many corporations such as Google and GM get away with paying close to 0% taxes. Google pays 2% in taxes.
So, while you call it "crap", there is actually a lot of truth to what he says.
Slashdot Mirror
And why people from all over the world pay big bucks to go to college here as well?
To be fair, the university system and in general, colleges in the U.S., are wholly separate from what the OP was referring to, i.e. public schools K-12.
That would mean he is apart of lulzsec - not that that makes him a part of it, or anything like that.
apart from lulzsec
Unfortunately, there is a very major force coming from Texas. A few yokels in Texas take school text books and cut out every thing they don't like about history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html
What ends up happening is that, since Texas buys a lot of textbooks and buys them early, textbook makers don't cater to other state curriculum nearly as much, and other states end up taking the same textbooks.
It's crazy... a very small group of people get to change history with no scientific process or regard to actual education.
The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. ...
There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
Although the numbers may not be correct for your particular timeline, the intent is still correct. The more urban states pay more federal taxes and receive less, as opposed to the rural states which pay less and receive more.
Not only was this true in the last decade, it is going to be true in the next decade as well (well, 99% chance it will be).
Such "handouts" (not my word) does not account for the 23 billion to 78 billion ballooning debt (which can mostly be prescribed to wildly unreasonable pension promises), but it certainly does account for a part of California's tax burden vs. Oregon's.
Although I agree with your assessment of the progressiveness of science, Tesla Predicted Mobile Messaging in 1909.
I work 30-35 hours/week and make 107K + ~15% bonus. The trick is that I'm better at what I do than everyone else around me, and I can do it in half the time.
I had to translate that sig real quick...
"I am the Adherents of the Repeated Meme"
String s = "49:20:61:6d:20:74:68:65:20:41:64:68:65:72:65:6e:74:73:20:6f:66:20:74:68:65:20:52:65:70:65:61:74:65:64:20:4d:65:6d:65";
int i = 0;
while (i s.length())
{
String n = s.substring(i, i + 2);
System.out.print((char) Integer.parseInt(n, 16));
i += 3;
}
This crazy dude is serious. Click on his name and look at his posts.
1. He really thinks it is big pharma that has "silenced" him on Slashdot, when in fact it is his negative troll ratings.
2. He has "Dr." in front of his name. As a person coming from a family of doctors, I can assure you that no credible medical institution in the U.S. would give the title of doctor to chiropractors. It's like Dr. Phil calling himself by the Dr. title to give himself more credibility (Dr. Phil is NOT a doctor). It is a pseudo-science. My sister's personal take on it is "if it makes you feel better, sure, but I would never treat any medical condition with a chiropractor."
3. This guy, who has the title of "Dr." in front of his name, thinks that diseases weren't cured by vaccines, but by CHIROPRACTIC.
Maybe Bill Clinton was right... someone needs to fact check some of these crazies.
I don't get what your point is... you said you're not willing to pay it, and in the same sentence you say you pay it, which therefore means you ARE willing to pay it.
HA! I love this! :)
Don't let the facts get in the way of your hatred of Fox News. I'm sorry the truth in the real world doesn't match the fantasies you've dreamed up in your head. I guess if the people you hate are not evil enough to justify your hatred, you have to make stuff up to fill the void. The sad part is that you have managed to convince yourself of something that doesn't match reality.
You actually had a valid and interesting point about how people unfairly immediately dismiss Fox News as always handling "news" without factual basis, and that other organizations have some similar faults as well.
Then you went into the above tirade which is a common theme in conservative psychology: liberals are hateful and liars, but not conservatives. You didn't have any evidence to come a reasonable conclusion of this broad stereotype either, it's sorta like saying "niggers are lazy" and "faggots don't have good parents". Interestingly enough, "make stuff up to fill the void" is exactly what the original post is about... but you are making up facts about a broad stereotype (liberals) to match your OWN beliefs, without regard to reason.
Even after it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a fake, didn't he insist that it was authentic?
No, he didn't. When it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a fake, he apologized and retired after a lifetime career of journalism. I dare say no modern newscaster would ever quit over one single mistake. I admit that's an opinion, but a reasonable opinion because nowadays viewers don't regard newscasters in as high regard as they did decades before.
if you start from a less efficient process and go up, you may not exceed the efficiency of a more efficient process
Which more efficient process are you talking about?
So the amount you can 'get from a solar panel' may not change at all. Which is, if you read the article, actually the case here.
I did read the article. It didn't say anything about what you mention (that the solar panel will not generate any more electricity). I'm having trouble following you. It seems that the article is stating that solar panels will generate 80% more electricity using the same amount of space.
Of course you didn't actually read the article, you just wanted to post first. No matter what the X is in "80% of X", this still means that you'll be able to get 80% more power from a solar panel.
With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency of conventional planar structure of the same materials.
You forgot to post as an anonymous coward.
As for Warren Buffet, yes most of it was dividends, interest, and capital gains. But the point is that it was income, whether "ordinary" or not.
http://www.google.com/search?q=google+pays+2%25+taxes
I am not in any way saying corporations or rich people are evil (or good). I'm just saying that the more money you have, the less percentage of taxes of your income you will likely pay.
False. Because the source code is freely available, anyone who wants to can take the whole thing and support it themselves.
That's apples and oranges. Open source, whether or not freely available or not, DOES lose support. The fact that someone can someone can download the source and change it does not constitute support, such as regular bug fixes and answers on forums. In fact, lots of open source software has no support at all... you can take it or leave it, and figure it out for yourself.
Here's an example of a support website for open source software: http://www.mozilla.org/support/
Now, just look on github or similar places for open source software, and you'll find that most of the software projects are just source code, with no support at all.
Exactly. I'm not sure you were being serious or not, but if people are buying the 3D stuff then the market will continue to create it. Maybe it's just a fad, but I don't see the idea that it's being pushed on consumers who don't want it as being valid. Some people buy 3D TVs, and some people don't. So what? The article says "Avoid 3D wherever possible". Well guess what? Some people, like myself, already do! And if other people want to continue to see 3D movies, then let them.
One of the huge advantages of adopting an open source operating system is to avoid such nonsense as the forcing of obsolescence on technology. For example, upgrade to the latest Ubuntu, say, isn't an issue because it is free and if the hardware won't go there you can just stick with the old version, safe in the knowledge that developers aren't actively trying to find reasons to make their latest offerings not run on it.
This is ridiculous. Open source software loses support in the same manner as closed source software. Much open source software loses its support quicker, for various reasons such as developers losing interest, not having time, or inability to work on it due to not being paid. Open source OSes develop new technology which new programs won't run without just as easily as closed source software. There is no reason or evidence that developers are or aren't actively trying to find reasons to make their latest offerings not run on either Linux or Windows.
Yes, I understand that Internet Explorer 10 does not run on Windows XP. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that the reason behind it is that the developers actively tried to find reasons to make that happen, and there is no evidence that this phenomenon is worse with closed source software. (I don't really know why it doesn't run on WinXP; I figure it uses APIs that are only available in later versions of Windows) I also bet you can find *nix software that does not run on old versions of *nix. (I don't have any examples, though)
A lot of commentors here have discussed lots of different interesting topics, but I thought I might offer this advice.
All things being equal, you are better of salary-wise to leave than to wait for promotions.
Not only does my experience along with many other people I know confirm this, I know more than one headhunter who also confirm this. I hate to tell you an anecdote about my own personal experience, but it won't hurt: every time I have been laid off (twice now and I'm not even 30) I've received a massive pay raise. I just recently got promoted 2 weeks ago and got a mere 8% pay raise. When I have been laid off I've gotten a 20% and 30% pay raise.
He also founded the W3C. He's much more the inventor of the world-wide web and a widespread hyper-linking technology that anybody else can claim to be. By one hell of a long distance.
That's a good point.
On a different note, I wish he had come up with a better acronym. "The World Wide Web is the only thing I know of whose shortened form takes three times longer to say than what it's short for" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web)
I hate it when I see the phrase "inventor of the web", etc. There are so many other people that invented the "Internet" as we know it. All he made a rather sucky protocol, and was just at the right place at the right time. He didn't invent anything related to the way information travels throughout the Internet... he just created a protocol using hypertext with items such as bold (note that he did NOT invent hypertext, either!!!!)
I'm not saying he's a bad guy or did anything bad. What I'm saying is that the credit for the "invention" he made is super, super, super overblown.
You're a dick.
GIMP is infinitely harder to use than Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro (I think it's called Corel Draw now). GIMP has a non-intuitive interface, and its features are hidden away. Doing something as simple as drawing a rounded rectangle in GIMP is a long, difficult process.
You don't have a right for food ergo you don't have a right to live.
This is incorrect logic; A does not imply B here.
So in short natural rights are as follows: ... right to do anything you want to anyone you want ...
What? No, there is no such thing as a right to do anything you want to anyone. There could only be a right that prevents others from doing anything they want to you, such as murdering you.
Education and information are the things that are mandatory for a person to be a part of society. Without society people would have never multiplied as much. A person cast out of society will die. Nature is a bitch that wants to kill you, no matter what the hippies say about "mother earth". So having basic education==being part of society==right to live.
That is bad logic. And some facts are wrong, too.
Without society people would have never multiplied as much This has nothing to do with rights. All this means is that it is better for people to be educated in order for people to multiply at higher rates.
A person cast out of society will die. Not true. An outcast person will not necessarily die. There are a lot of assumptions to that statement that could never be applied to all humans.
Nature is a bitch that wants to kill youI can see how survival could be used in a case for natural rights, but I'm not sure how it fits into what you're saying here.
no matter what the hippies say about "mother earth" Not only is this completely pointless and has no bearing on the argument, but just because hippies "like mother earth" doesn't make them think there is no natural danger to humanity on this planet.
So having basic education==being part of society==right to live. This deductive reasoning has no merit at all. Why is having basic education equal to being part of a society? There is a general correlation, but it isn't 1:1. How is being part of society equal to a right to live? You still have one when you aren't a part of a society.
So in short natural rights are... [also] known as "survival instinct".
Absolutely not! My survival instinct tells me to kill and steal, but such instincts are not my natural rights.
You are absolutely correct about your assessment of what rights are. +1!
That being said, if 51% of people vote to legislate that "sugar is a vegetable", that can happen. In the same manner, if the U.S. constitution is amended to say that "Education and internet connectivity are rights", are education and internet connectivity still not rights in the U.S.?
If you have enough money in the bank, you don't have to pay taxes.
You obviously aren't American (or one of the herd) if you believe that crap.
Well, in America the richer you are, the better equipped you are for tax evasion. You probably also pay less of a percentage of your income than a middle class person. For example, Warren Buffet pays around 17.7 percent and his secretary around 30.0 percent (See "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary" at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)
At a corporate level instead of a personal level, many corporations such as Google and GM get away with paying close to 0% taxes. Google pays 2% in taxes.
So, while you call it "crap", there is actually a lot of truth to what he says.