...oh, please. All of you saying that you're done with Blizzard, and "fool me once...", and that you won't buy RoS are not fooling anyone. You will ALL buy it. Maybe not at first, but you will. And you know it.
The value of a post-secondary education is not so much in what particular things you learned, which will of course becomes increasingly dated over time, but in what you learned about perseverance, critical thinking, communicating [in writing] (this one is huge), and how to learn. Assuming the student invests at all in their college experience, they can't help but mature in these areas, and emerge as big[ger]-picture folks. Note that I'm not saying that you can't develop these traits in other ways.
So, I contend that the true "value" of post-secondary education does not diminish with time. That said, the superficial value certainly decreases (especially within academia itself, ironically) as you pointed out, because, "employers will care less about your college days and more about what you've been doing since then."
It's pretty disturbing that you got modded up to "Insightful." Disobeying one's parents from time to time is inevitable, but "getting around all limitations" is not a filial "duty." What rubbish.
Nearing completion? Hardly. Its veracity at points conflicts with alternative interpretations of an event or phenomenon, which cannot always, nonetheless, be discarded as a matter of course. That tension will always be present, and balancing the two will always be necessary. Let's not even mention spelling and especially grammar (except I just did, and it is too often atrocious). Mature reference work with a well established reputation? Certainly debatable; I personally know several professors who will not accept citing Wikipedia. Anecdotal, sure, but there must be a significant number like that. The nature of the work may be fundamentally changing, but the work on Wikipedia is FAR from over.
I can't speak for the other Deputy Returning Officers, but at my polling station the ballots were counted without error.
All I was required to do was pick up each ballot and read its contents, out loud. A polling clerk kept a running tally, with representatives from each party looking on.
Seems pretty foolproof, though I suppose it's possible for a dishonest DRO to read out falsely, and for the onlookers to miss it.
When a child shrugs off summer because "...we just sit there and watch TV" I *guarantee* that it indicates something more than any potential drawback to a 9-month curriculum. What it indicates is bad parenting, and/or a lack of initiative on the part of the child. You cannot teach either of those things in school, no matter how much more time you demand from the students.
In addition, if your skills regress so much over the course of a summer, then I humbly submit that YOU NEVER LEARNED THEM THAT WELL TO BEGIN WITH. Yeah, I said it.
You want to motivate someone to learn who doesn't naturally love to do so? Make something fucking ride on it. Treat these kids with respect, and start handing out failing grades again. I hazard a guess that they'll appreciate summer holidays more. Rant over.
...with all of this is that the patent life is too long for computer technology. Computing power doubles roughly every two years. An academic paper in computer science is old hat in 6 months or less. Why, and oh why has patent law not recognized this and adjusted the window accordingly? Doing so would still reward innovators by letting them be a special snowflake and hook followers off the start with their innovation, but would not stifle competitors to an obscene degree (and thereby keep the original innovators, well, innovating, too).
You can throw all the Latin around you like, but you'll still be a fanatical quack. Sorry, what was that? Oh, it's because you waded in with the term "libertardian."
"You seem proud of being short-sighted. When your kid is on a ventilator, just keep telling yourself "at least my wife has a great personality!""
Uncalled for, and unnecessarily cruel, especially given that it is impossible to know.
"Genetic engineering could break the cycle, but instead you'd rather deny others that freedom because it hurts your fragile ego."
MS is not itself hereditary. Diabetes and heart disease can be managed fairly easily, if not cheaply. Properly managed, personal freedom is in no way compromised. As to cost, what would it cost to fully screen and then terminate fetus after fetus? By the way, pointing the finger at someone else's "fragile ego" is a bit misplaced. We're all in that particular boat, I think.
"An infant is less aware of its own existence than a dog."
Proof?
"We put down stray dogs routinely."
Disagree. I worked in a veterinary hospital for several years, which entails a fair bit of communication with animal control. Stray dogs are not "routinely" put down. They are put down only after exhausting all efforts to locate the owner, and even then they are more likely to be sent to an animal shelter.
"Don't confuse your irrational sentimentality with reason."
I will stop confusing irrational sentimentality that frowns on infanticide with reason, when you and your ilk can show me what reason is.
The good professor starts with screening flaws, but finishes with the admonition to, "..bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society." Notice the subtle difference?
Moreover, he starts by conflating ethics with morality ('moral obligation'), but finishes by accusing those who may disagree as being squeamish and irrational. In my first ethics lecture at university, the professor made it clear that ethics and morality are separate beasts. The same applies to ethics and legality (and morality and legality, for that matter).
I for one do not appreciate such atrocious bait and switch, especially from someone who should (and does) know better.
...most people who do it are downright bad at it. That they might take more time and care to be good at it without the perpetual axe of publish-publish-publish and grants funding hanging over their heads is another issue all together.
Off-hand, I'd say you are a troll. At least, I hope you are. As a graduate student conducting research with humans, I can tell you quite honestly that every time I get back the ethics review of my latest proposal, I cringe inwardly at the revisions they require before granting ethics approval because it means more work from me. However, *each and every time* the result of applying those revisions is a better study design, and better study documentation. This is because you are forced to spell out your whole plan explicitly, rather than keeping it at the level of pseudocode, as it were. So while I used to regard the ethics review board as just a series of hoops to jump through, I've come to realize that they really are acting in my best interests too, and are helping me do better science. Ethics reviews HELP the scientific process unless you're some kind of quack.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea. I like the character of Uther, and the story of Arthas. Now that that's out of the way, Anonymous Coward, you know I'm right.
Actually, there is supposed to be a major itemization patch before the expansion is released. They did the same thing prior to releasing LoD.
...oh, please. All of you saying that you're done with Blizzard, and "fool me once...", and that you won't buy RoS are not fooling anyone. You will ALL buy it. Maybe not at first, but you will. And you know it.
Therefore: lololol BB fail!
Yes and no.
The value of a post-secondary education is not so much in what particular things you learned, which will of course becomes increasingly dated over time, but in what you learned about perseverance, critical thinking, communicating [in writing] (this one is huge), and how to learn. Assuming the student invests at all in their college experience, they can't help but mature in these areas, and emerge as big[ger]-picture folks. Note that I'm not saying that you can't develop these traits in other ways.
So, I contend that the true "value" of post-secondary education does not diminish with time. That said, the superficial value certainly decreases (especially within academia itself, ironically) as you pointed out, because, "employers will care less about your college days and more about what you've been doing since then."
...you had me at "Egon"
It's pretty disturbing that you got modded up to "Insightful." Disobeying one's parents from time to time is inevitable, but "getting around all limitations" is not a filial "duty." What rubbish.
Where did Google get this correlation theory? It seems completely counter to my experience of human beings as individuals.
Hmm. Anecdotal assertion from a /. user versus access to more data than God from Google. Who to believe, who to believe?
Nearing completion? Hardly. Its veracity at points conflicts with alternative interpretations of an event or phenomenon, which cannot always, nonetheless, be discarded as a matter of course. That tension will always be present, and balancing the two will always be necessary. Let's not even mention spelling and especially grammar (except I just did, and it is too often atrocious). Mature reference work with a well established reputation? Certainly debatable; I personally know several professors who will not accept citing Wikipedia. Anecdotal, sure, but there must be a significant number like that. The nature of the work may be fundamentally changing, but the work on Wikipedia is FAR from over.
I'm fairly certain that were Einstein still alive, he would be shaking his head at such ridiculousness.
I can't speak for the other Deputy Returning Officers, but at my polling station the ballots were counted without error. All I was required to do was pick up each ballot and read its contents, out loud. A polling clerk kept a running tally, with representatives from each party looking on. Seems pretty foolproof, though I suppose it's possible for a dishonest DRO to read out falsely, and for the onlookers to miss it.
When a child shrugs off summer because "...we just sit there and watch TV" I *guarantee* that it indicates something more than any potential drawback to a 9-month curriculum. What it indicates is bad parenting, and/or a lack of initiative on the part of the child. You cannot teach either of those things in school, no matter how much more time you demand from the students. In addition, if your skills regress so much over the course of a summer, then I humbly submit that YOU NEVER LEARNED THEM THAT WELL TO BEGIN WITH. Yeah, I said it. You want to motivate someone to learn who doesn't naturally love to do so? Make something fucking ride on it. Treat these kids with respect, and start handing out failing grades again. I hazard a guess that they'll appreciate summer holidays more. Rant over.
...with all of this is that the patent life is too long for computer technology. Computing power doubles roughly every two years. An academic paper in computer science is old hat in 6 months or less. Why, and oh why has patent law not recognized this and adjusted the window accordingly? Doing so would still reward innovators by letting them be a special snowflake and hook followers off the start with their innovation, but would not stifle competitors to an obscene degree (and thereby keep the original innovators, well, innovating, too).
You can throw all the Latin around you like, but you'll still be a fanatical quack. Sorry, what was that? Oh, it's because you waded in with the term "libertardian."
"You seem proud of being short-sighted. When your kid is on a ventilator, just keep telling yourself "at least my wife has a great personality!""
Uncalled for, and unnecessarily cruel, especially given that it is impossible to know.
"Genetic engineering could break the cycle, but instead you'd rather deny others that freedom because it hurts your fragile ego."
MS is not itself hereditary. Diabetes and heart disease can be managed fairly easily, if not cheaply. Properly managed, personal freedom is in no way compromised. As to cost, what would it cost to fully screen and then terminate fetus after fetus? By the way, pointing the finger at someone else's "fragile ego" is a bit misplaced. We're all in that particular boat, I think.
"An infant is less aware of its own existence than a dog."
Proof?
"We put down stray dogs routinely."
Disagree. I worked in a veterinary hospital for several years, which entails a fair bit of communication with animal control. Stray dogs are not "routinely" put down. They are put down only after exhausting all efforts to locate the owner, and even then they are more likely to be sent to an animal shelter.
"Don't confuse your irrational sentimentality with reason."
I will stop confusing irrational sentimentality that frowns on infanticide with reason, when you and your ilk can show me what reason is.
The good professor starts with screening flaws, but finishes with the admonition to, "..bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society." Notice the subtle difference? Moreover, he starts by conflating ethics with morality ('moral obligation'), but finishes by accusing those who may disagree as being squeamish and irrational. In my first ethics lecture at university, the professor made it clear that ethics and morality are separate beasts. The same applies to ethics and legality (and morality and legality, for that matter). I for one do not appreciate such atrocious bait and switch, especially from someone who should (and does) know better.
It's too bad Carlin's extreme cynicism turned whatever wits he had to idiocy. Yes, I said it. Carlin was an idiot.
They've been doing this for centuries.
"Because we can!"
...most people who do it are downright bad at it. That they might take more time and care to be good at it without the perpetual axe of publish-publish-publish and grants funding hanging over their heads is another issue all together.
This is what Arab nations do for fun, apparently: build ever taller and more opulent structures. Woo.
Off-hand, I'd say you are a troll. At least, I hope you are. As a graduate student conducting research with humans, I can tell you quite honestly that every time I get back the ethics review of my latest proposal, I cringe inwardly at the revisions they require before granting ethics approval because it means more work from me. However, *each and every time* the result of applying those revisions is a better study design, and better study documentation. This is because you are forced to spell out your whole plan explicitly, rather than keeping it at the level of pseudocode, as it were. So while I used to regard the ethics review board as just a series of hoops to jump through, I've come to realize that they really are acting in my best interests too, and are helping me do better science. Ethics reviews HELP the scientific process unless you're some kind of quack.