I suspect there is a lot more to this story than anyone in the universities or legislature would ever admit publicly.
But I suspect the real impetus here is that the state legislators don't want anyone coming into their state without having to lobby (aka bribe) them first. Every state university has to come to them once a year with hat-in-hand, and they sure don't want anyone bypassing this system by coming in from out of state without paying their largesse. The patron expects his coin before you do business here, citizen.
More likely they're afraid on-line courses will kill off their meatspace universities, and then they won't have a vanity football team.
(I think some states, including the one where I am now, wouldn't fund higher education at all, except to avoid being the only state in the Union without a football team.)
They should improve the MathGen tool to make more realistic papers. Then continue to improve upon it until it can actually generate working mathematical theories.
IIRC, some theorem-proving AI technologies can enumerate the theorems provable from a set of axioms. (Though, hats off to Gödel, not everything that's true within the system.)
The hard part would be going through the output to find which theorems are actually new and interesting.
On its date of publication (May 1996), Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of Left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense . . . structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics".[2]
He would sooo be hauled out and crucified if he tried this today and characterized the content "Left-wing".
That's the problem right there. God has been indoctrinated in radical liberal ideology by college professors. That's why we need strong conservative Christian leaders in power, to combat God's liberal bias.
The half life of carbon-14 is only about 5000 years. So either other, unstable isotopes have been degrading into carbon-14: in which case you should have science to back up those rates of isotopic altercations- or your science is bunkum.
You must be thinking about carbon-5. Carbon-14 is guaranteed for 14,000 years.
The researchers collected roughly 70-meter core samples from the lake and painstakingly counted the layers to come up with a direct record stretching back 52,000 years.
Holy crap. "Painstakingly" doesn't even begin to cover counting 52,000 stripes in a core sample.
No problem, at 80 hours a week a grad student should be able to finish well before his indentured servitude expires.
Supposedly when you see a row of birds standing on a cable, all the ones in the middle are asleep, and the two on the end have half a brain awake so that their outside eye is paying attention.
More recent result is that even in humans, 'asleep' isn't a boolean proposition. Different parts of your brain may go to sleep at different times. Sometimes leads to "normal" sleepwalking, sometimes to horrid behavior because the impluse-suppression part is asleep and most of the rest isn't. See the overview article in a recent issue of Scientific American. (Current or previous issue, IIRC.)
We need to start pressuring Congress to create a law stating that access to the courts is a fundamental right that cannot be denied as the terms of a contract.
I think you're talking about different things. Stripping a business for short-term profit happens frequently under cutthroat capitalism, but it's not what the GP is talking about when he says "a well-run business."
Yes, but look at what the GGP said, and see what the GP was trying to twist around with an irrelevant response.
However, I suspect that it's impossible to write a set of laws that leeches can't find a way to exploit, for their own benefit at the detriment of the greater good.
I call bullshit unless you are in the top 1-5% of earners.
Call away. Single head of household, good job (for now), diddly for deductions, > 15%. It happens.[*]
And that's income tax as a percentage of my total income, not "all taxes", not percent of income after standard deductions.
And I'm nowhere near the top 1%-5%.
[*] And I'm not complaining about it. I'm just disgusted with the crybabies who want the benefits of living in a first-world nation without paying their share. We've become a country where the more you have, the stronger sense of entitlement you have.
But alas, all the evidence shows that reducing taxes on the self-declared "job creator" class doesn't actually create jobs or increase the GDP. If you've seen the timelines that show tax rates vs those effects, you've seen that the correlation is actually somewhat negative.
The whole "job creators" mantra is just more propaganda for the decades-long attempt to spin greed as a virtue.
Romney paid 14% in federal taxes. That was just over 3 million dollars.
Here is what the average american pays in federal taxes as a percentage of their income..
[...]
Do you know who paid a higher federal tax % then Romney? Not the bottom 80% of earners, the top 20% did. Who is sucking the juice? The bottom 80% of earners.
As it happens, *I* paid a higher rate than Romney. Why should he pay a lower rate than I do? Because he invests and I work?
A well run business employs as few people as possible
The strategy described by the post you're replying to hasn't got anything to do with running a business. It's about using a business a a consumable resource for a MAKE MONEY FA$T scheme.
That's why we use such flattering terms as "vulture capitalist" for people who operate that way.
Presidents are the de facto leader of their party. If Romney pushes a tax plan and the Republicans control the House (which they almost certainly will), then Romney's plan will pass. It could possibly get stalled in the Senate, but I don't expect the Democrats to have the balls to actually fight back.
Also, a President is supposed to use his office as a "bully pulpit" to get Congress to get stuff done.
And the fact of the matter is, Socialism just can't stand up face-to-face against pure free market capitalism.
What do you mean, "stand up". Win in an election? Provide a better economy? (For who?)
Also, it would be good if you would define Socialism, just to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. I know undefined terms are the bread and butter of American political discourse, but if you want us to take your post seriously we have to know what you actually mean.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect there is a lot more to this story than anyone in the universities or legislature would ever admit publicly.
But I suspect the real impetus here is that the state legislators don't want anyone coming into their state without having to lobby (aka bribe) them first. Every state university has to come to them once a year with hat-in-hand, and they sure don't want anyone bypassing this system by coming in from out of state without paying their largesse. The patron expects his coin before you do business here, citizen.
More likely they're afraid on-line courses will kill off their meatspace universities, and then they won't have a vanity football team.
(I think some states, including the one where I am now, wouldn't fund higher education at all, except to avoid being the only state in the Union without a football team.)
They should improve the MathGen tool to make more realistic papers.
Then continue to improve upon it until it can actually generate working mathematical theories.
IIRC, some theorem-proving AI technologies can enumerate the theorems provable from a set of axioms. (Though, hats off to Gödel, not everything that's true within the system.)
The hard part would be going through the output to find which theorems are actually new and interesting.
The poi t of feed back from the person reviewing the paper is not to make the paper better.
Your conclusion is off by n.
On its date of publication (May 1996), Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of Left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense . . . structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics".[2]
He would sooo be hauled out and crucified if he tried this today and characterized the content "Left-wing".
I wonder left-wing mathematics would look like.
Maybe the program takes a parameter: -W left
God is a grad student
That's the problem right there. God has been indoctrinated in radical liberal ideology by college professors.
That's why we need strong conservative Christian leaders in power, to combat God's liberal bias.
-
Ah, so that explains reality's liberal bias.
The half life of carbon-14 is only about 5000 years. So either other, unstable isotopes have been degrading into carbon-14:
in which case you should have science to back up those rates of isotopic altercations- or your science is bunkum.
You must be thinking about carbon-5. Carbon-14 is guaranteed for 14,000 years.
...they dominate U.S. politics!
Probably because they also dominate the voting booths.
Holy crap. "Painstakingly" doesn't even begin to cover counting 52,000 stripes in a core sample.
No problem, at 80 hours a week a grad student should be able to finish well before his indentured servitude expires.
The problem is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 years.
What's the problem? That's 7,984 years before the beginning of time.
We are indeed inferior to dolphins, brain-wise. Makes you wonder what the mice can pull off!
Depends on whether you're talking about Pinky or The Brain.
This is old "news". (Can we call it "olds"?)
Supposedly when you see a row of birds standing on a cable, all the ones in the middle are asleep, and the two on the end have half a brain awake so that their outside eye is paying attention.
More recent result is that even in humans, 'asleep' isn't a boolean proposition. Different parts of your brain may go to sleep at different times. Sometimes leads to "normal" sleepwalking, sometimes to horrid behavior because the impluse-suppression part is asleep and most of the rest isn't. See the overview article in a recent issue of Scientific American. (Current or previous issue, IIRC.)
We need to start pressuring Congress to create a law stating that access to the courts is a fundamental right that cannot be denied as the terms of a contract.
50 posts, and still no oblig.xkcd?
I think you're talking about different things. Stripping a business for short-term profit happens frequently under cutthroat capitalism, but it's not what the GP is talking about when he says "a well-run business."
Yes, but look at what the GGP said, and see what the GP was trying to twist around with an irrelevant response.
I agree with him on patent reform.
However, I suspect that it's impossible to write a set of laws that leeches can't find a way to exploit, for their own benefit at the detriment of the greater good.
I call bullshit unless you are in the top 1-5% of earners.
Call away. Single head of household, good job (for now), diddly for deductions, > 15%. It happens.[*]
And that's income tax as a percentage of my total income, not "all taxes", not percent of income after standard deductions.
And I'm nowhere near the top 1%-5%.
[*] And I'm not complaining about it. I'm just disgusted with the crybabies who want the benefits of living in a first-world nation without paying their share. We've become a country where the more you have, the stronger sense of entitlement you have.
Printing currency is a fundamental human right! Next thing you know, they be telling you and me that we can't print currency anymore either.
If they are able to get the economy expanding, create jobs, and widen the tax base, which will also help cut government spending for social services such as unemployment, the Republican plan can work, assuming some spending control.
But alas, all the evidence shows that reducing taxes on the self-declared "job creator" class doesn't actually create jobs or increase the GDP. If you've seen the timelines that show tax rates vs those effects, you've seen that the correlation is actually somewhat negative.
The whole "job creators" mantra is just more propaganda for the decades-long attempt to spin greed as a virtue.
Romney paid 14% in federal taxes. That was just over 3 million dollars.
Here is what the average american pays in federal taxes as a percentage of their income..
[...]
Do you know who paid a higher federal tax % then Romney? Not the bottom 80% of earners, the top 20% did. Who is sucking the juice? The bottom 80% of earners.
As it happens, *I* paid a higher rate than Romney. Why should he pay a lower rate than I do? Because he invests and I work?
As things stand, they're going to finish squeezing all the juice out of my country, and then leave anyway.
To squeeze another country, if there's another that's foolish enough to tolerate it.
Depending on your perspective they could be equally bad, but they are certainly not the same. Anybody who doesn't see a difference isn't looking.
Yes, they could be bad in different directions.
Although unless you feel the same about both of those directions, you'll probably think the one that's bad in the worse direction is worse.
A well run business employs as few people as possible
The strategy described by the post you're replying to hasn't got anything to do with running a business. It's about using a business a a consumable resource for a MAKE MONEY FA$T scheme.
That's why we use such flattering terms as "vulture capitalist" for people who operate that way.
Absolutely brilliant.
I suspect some of these (presumably) low-budget satires end up having more influence than most big-budget campaign ads.
Presidents are the de facto leader of their party. If Romney pushes a tax plan and the Republicans control the House (which they almost certainly will), then Romney's plan will pass. It could possibly get stalled in the Senate, but I don't expect the Democrats to have the balls to actually fight back.
Also, a President is supposed to use his office as a "bully pulpit" to get Congress to get stuff done.
And the fact of the matter is, Socialism just can't stand up face-to-face against pure free market capitalism.
What do you mean, "stand up". Win in an election? Provide a better economy? (For who?)
Also, it would be good if you would define Socialism, just to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. I know undefined terms are the bread and butter of American political discourse, but if you want us to take your post seriously we have to know what you actually mean.