I'd say that an MBA is considerably less useful than an English degree. At least with an English degree, an employer can be fairly certain the candidate can put together a coherent sentence, think critically and analytically, and understands perspective. With an MBA about the only thing they're assured of is your ability to draw a nice seating chart.
This kind of reminds me of the study that found only a small percentage of soldiers actually fired their weapons at the enemy during combat.
So you're saying the concept of work is so morally repugnant that it triggers an innate aversion that can only be overcome through repetition, realistic simulation, and live-fire drills? (I actually read those studies).
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if non-technical business leads can move their technology needs to the "cloud" without any involvement from IT, then that company shouldn't have had an IT department in the first place. Why would you have an accounting department if an hourly hire from AccuTemp using Quicken can do the job? I have no problem with business doing this. I also have no problem with these managers going to prison for skirting auditing laws, and IT telling them to go screw themselves when they have a problem with the tools they need or use to access their stand-alone technology. The late 90s were replete with department level IT initiatives that fairly uniformly ended up in failure. When business realized they had lost control of their data, their security, and their employees, they reigned it all back in.
Evidently some people don't learn.
I don't see where I said "all of the atheists". "The atheists" can mean two or two hundred. It's rather purposefully ambiguous.
It's pretty unambiguous. "The atheists" means all of the "atheists." "Some atheists" or "some of the atheists" can mean two or three or some subset, but "THE atheists" means all of them. It's called a generalization. Unless of course you'd be okay with paying someone to fill the hole in your backyard, and after they've thrown in a shovel or two of dirt, they quit because they "filled the hole." I imagine "the atheists damn near crucified" you because the kind of illogical contortions you have to make to get to a statement like yours is the same kind of thinking that leads to most theistic beliefs.
You don't get it. Teachers are being paid crappy hourly rates and forced to work "contract time" that has them there for 8+ hours a day.
Man, am I getting sick of this. Would you like me to post the list of salaries from my school district here? Over 78% of the teachers in our school district make over $50K a year for 9 months of work. 12% of our teachers are making over $100K for 9 months of work. Illinois averages $58K for 9 months http://teacherportal.com/salary/Illinois-teacher-salary
I'm sure there are plenty of teachers out there making crappy hourly rates, but that's YOUR fault, not theirs. If you don't value your kid's education enough to shell out the bucks, you deserve what you get.
Im not equating it with anything, Im saying that if there is a real credible reason for the teacher not to teach it (and loss of job or threats against their person most certainly is a credible reason) then they shouldn't be made to teach it.
Oh, that's just great. So the people who want to stop the in-school abstinence programs and teaching creationism in biology just need to get more violent?
So, what you're saying is that Lerner and Schankerman lied about their findings?
It's a survey, and one whose questions were not quoted in the article. I could easily come up with a poorly worded generic question to get answers to support either side of that argument. Regardless, here's the failing in their findings right here:
But companies that use such programs spend more on such things as learning to use them and making them work with other software.... Do its employees have the necessary skills?
Let's take two concrete examples: 1) An all Windows shop that moves to Linux, and 2) an all Linux shop that moves to Windows. Assume that both shops have skillset tuned entirely to their current technologies and that the pay scale is equivalent for both skillsets. Both groups 1 & 2 are going to have to pay an equivalent amount to hire or train people who understand the new technology. Both groups 1 & 2 are likely going to pay for some level of support. Group 2 however, will also have to pay the cost of licensing the software whereas group 1 will not.
Saying that Open Source software is more expensive than proprietary software because of the time and cost to train people to use it is utter crap. I work almost exclusively on Linux and Open Source tools - thousands and thousands of nodes. Our software is all in house and maintained and supported in house. The only thing I have ever been to training for is the parade of proprietary tools we use we use for ticketing systems. After our third multi-million dollar layout, we finally said "screw it", diverted some of our smarter guys to sit down with an Open Source package for a couple weeks and tweak it for our environment, and we've used it ever since.
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Actually, they have to be under 16, or be mentally or physically handicapped, and they must believe the child is in danger.
How is this insightful? "That's still 525 toilet seats, and even though we paid $50,000 each for them, they're doing exactly what they should - giving me a place to take a dump, which I will then post via Facebook."
Geez, that guy nearly broke my brain. "unless Google are careful...", "Google have made..." The author is apparently British. Sounds like he needs an English as Second Language class.
Those of us who are hyperlexes benefit from it, dyslexics suffer. One in two sounds about right; half the population have two digit IQs.
Someone with Hyperlexia would probably know that the singular form is hyperlexic. They'd also be smart enough to realize that intelligence or reading comprehension has nothing to do with emotional stability or control. And there's a good chance that they'd realize that hyperlexic individuals also have much lower reading comprehension than their dyslexic counterparts and would probably suffer in greater proportion by not being able to grasp as much of what they read.
If you've developed a method of figuring out how to catch the ball each and every time and for every possible permutation without fail, THEN you've solved the problem. What the poster is implying is that perhaps the observed behavior is not solving the same problem at all, but another problem similar enough to appear that way.
1) Editing: Have you read any recent books? Between word usage, entire sentences cut off, and flat basic gammar errors many newer novels don't appear to have anything beyond the basic spell check run, if that. Add that to the mistakes added on purpose to "detect illicit copies" and it's painful to read some books. Not just small publishers either - larger houses such as Tor have this problem.
The fact that you don't know the difference between editing and copy-editing speaks volumes about what you don't know about publishing. Editing is a valuable contribution to the publishing process and can make the difference between a mid-shelf and blockbuster book. I don't know what books you've been reading, but aside from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", I can't remember the last time I read the kinds of errors you describe. Outside of a self-published book, that is.
2) Marketing: In this case it'll be handled, for free, but your readership. Get some decent reviews on Amazon, end up on their "You might also like" list, and things go from there. Classic word of mouth only with a much larger potential base. If you get mentioned on a blog with a decent reader base things will move even quicker.
No. No it won't. Marketing is anything but free and can even fail disastrously for a well-written, well-edited book. Most people who read books and pass it on word of mouth don't do so through the comments on Amazon or any blog. There are obvious exceptions: technical books or certain areas of non-fiction, but in general, people who read don't care what Joe Dirt has to say about an author.
3) Cover/format: Format can be handled by any modern word processor with templates (search online - free ones abound, for everything from novels to screenplays), and cover can be done for a small fee to a decent artist or (if you have them) friends with talent. Why pay the publisher rate?
For the same reason you can tell when your local car dealership's daughter is the model for his commercial and his cousin is behind the camera. If your expertise is writing - which it obviously is or you wouldn't be trying to publish a book, right? Right? - what makes you think you're also an expert marketer/artist/graphic design/layout artist?
4) Connections: See 2. This, again, is obviated by skipping the industry entirely.
Much like the music business, it's much easier for amateur writers to get their stuff in front of the public. If you're decent, get yourself on even one decently read blog and you'll get yourself started. Yes, there's a lot of "if" coming off this plan but it's just as bad with an agent/publishing house, only you're less likely to get screwed with a bad contract.
Again, no. No, no, no. Music is disposable. It takes two minutes to listen to a song, and probably even less to decide if you like it. Or, you may follow the critic's advice and listen to it at least seven times before deciding. Total investment: 15 minutes. Reading takes time. It takes an investment. It takes a commitment from the reader. Most people, especially voracious readers aren't going to waste their time on something that hasn't been vetted by someone who knows what they're talking about: a trusted friend or a publishing house. Publishers are the front-line against the sea of crap that people like you think requires nothing but exposure to make successful.
One final note: if you self-publish, good luck ever getting a reputable publishing company to look twice at you. Yes, it can happen. I was able to find seven cases in the history of publishing where it happened, though I personally know of three cases where the author was rejected explicitly for it.
Fine, but troll? Off-topic, maybe, but trolling? If you honestly think your rights in American haven't been seriously degraded in the last 30 years, you're the one living under a bridge.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that an MBA is considerably less useful than an English degree. At least with an English degree, an employer can be fairly certain the candidate can put together a coherent sentence, think critically and analytically, and understands perspective. With an MBA about the only thing they're assured of is your ability to draw a nice seating chart.
This kind of reminds me of the study that found only a small percentage of soldiers actually fired their weapons at the enemy during combat.
So you're saying the concept of work is so morally repugnant that it triggers an innate aversion that can only be overcome through repetition, realistic simulation, and live-fire drills? (I actually read those studies).
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if non-technical business leads can move their technology needs to the "cloud" without any involvement from IT, then that company shouldn't have had an IT department in the first place. Why would you have an accounting department if an hourly hire from AccuTemp using Quicken can do the job? I have no problem with business doing this. I also have no problem with these managers going to prison for skirting auditing laws, and IT telling them to go screw themselves when they have a problem with the tools they need or use to access their stand-alone technology. The late 90s were replete with department level IT initiatives that fairly uniformly ended up in failure. When business realized they had lost control of their data, their security, and their employees, they reigned it all back in. Evidently some people don't learn.
I don't see where I said "all of the atheists". "The atheists" can mean two or two hundred. It's rather purposefully ambiguous.
It's pretty unambiguous. "The atheists" means all of the "atheists." "Some atheists" or "some of the atheists" can mean two or three or some subset, but "THE atheists" means all of them. It's called a generalization. Unless of course you'd be okay with paying someone to fill the hole in your backyard, and after they've thrown in a shovel or two of dirt, they quit because they "filled the hole." I imagine "the atheists damn near crucified" you because the kind of illogical contortions you have to make to get to a statement like yours is the same kind of thinking that leads to most theistic beliefs.
You don't get it. Teachers are being paid crappy hourly rates and forced to work "contract time" that has them there for 8+ hours a day.
Man, am I getting sick of this. Would you like me to post the list of salaries from my school district here? Over 78% of the teachers in our school district make over $50K a year for 9 months of work. 12% of our teachers are making over $100K for 9 months of work. Illinois averages $58K for 9 months http://teacherportal.com/salary/Illinois-teacher-salary
I'm sure there are plenty of teachers out there making crappy hourly rates, but that's YOUR fault, not theirs. If you don't value your kid's education enough to shell out the bucks, you deserve what you get.
Im not equating it with anything, Im saying that if there is a real credible reason for the teacher not to teach it (and loss of job or threats against their person most certainly is a credible reason) then they shouldn't be made to teach it.
Oh, that's just great. So the people who want to stop the in-school abstinence programs and teaching creationism in biology just need to get more violent?
Do you always assume the word "nationwide" applies to your nation?
The journos at The Economist sill think "open source" = "written by volunteers"
Except, you know... for the part where they said
Open-source developers ... work for firms that develop both open-source and proprietary programs and combine them in all kinds of business models.
So, what you're saying is that Lerner and Schankerman lied about their findings?
It's a survey, and one whose questions were not quoted in the article. I could easily come up with a poorly worded generic question to get answers to support either side of that argument. Regardless, here's the failing in their findings right here:
But companies that use such programs spend more on such things as learning to use them and making them work with other software. ... Do its employees have the necessary skills?
Let's take two concrete examples: 1) An all Windows shop that moves to Linux, and 2) an all Linux shop that moves to Windows. Assume that both shops have skillset tuned entirely to their current technologies and that the pay scale is equivalent for both skillsets. Both groups 1 & 2 are going to have to pay an equivalent amount to hire or train people who understand the new technology. Both groups 1 & 2 are likely going to pay for some level of support. Group 2 however, will also have to pay the cost of licensing the software whereas group 1 will not.
Saying that Open Source software is more expensive than proprietary software because of the time and cost to train people to use it is utter crap. I work almost exclusively on Linux and Open Source tools - thousands and thousands of nodes. Our software is all in house and maintained and supported in house. The only thing I have ever been to training for is the parade of proprietary tools we use we use for ticketing systems. After our third multi-million dollar layout, we finally said "screw it", diverted some of our smarter guys to sit down with an Open Source package for a couple weeks and tweak it for our environment, and we've used it ever since.
Children include anyone under 18.
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Actually, they have to be under 16, or be mentally or physically handicapped, and they must believe the child is in danger.
Illinois Amber Alert site
How is this insightful? "That's still 525 toilet seats, and even though we paid $50,000 each for them, they're doing exactly what they should - giving me a place to take a dump, which I will then post via Facebook."
A fistful of +1 funnies for you sir!
Geez, that guy nearly broke my brain. "unless Google are careful...", "Google have made..." The author is apparently British. Sounds like he needs an English as Second Language class.
Hear hear. To claim that MSNBC is somehow "just as bad" as Fox News is to invoke a false analogy
This is Slashdot. You say that as if it's a bad thing.
I believe you've just performed the often sought but rarely achieved redundant analogy trifecta in a single sentence.
Replace "cell phone" with "alcohol" and you'll see the road which this is headed down.
Those of us who are hyperlexes benefit from it, dyslexics suffer. One in two sounds about right; half the population have two digit IQs.
Someone with Hyperlexia would probably know that the singular form is hyperlexic. They'd also be smart enough to realize that intelligence or reading comprehension has nothing to do with emotional stability or control. And there's a good chance that they'd realize that hyperlexic individuals also have much lower reading comprehension than their dyslexic counterparts and would probably suffer in greater proportion by not being able to grasp as much of what they read.
If you've developed a method of figuring out how to catch the ball each and every time and for every possible permutation without fail, THEN you've solved the problem. What the poster is implying is that perhaps the observed behavior is not solving the same problem at all, but another problem similar enough to appear that way.
Probably one of the best summaries of the fundamental problem with the history of most AI research I've read yet.
This seems to directly contradict what you're saying, so I'll assume you have access to more information and will be linking likewise shortly...
You must be new here ;)
Completely OT, but I read your sig as "trannies". It was much funnier that way.
Isn't that like trying to out-troll ACs on Slashdot?
Hrmm...
1) Editing: Have you read any recent books? Between word usage, entire sentences cut off, and flat basic gammar errors many newer novels don't appear to have anything beyond the basic spell check run, if that. Add that to the mistakes added on purpose to "detect illicit copies" and it's painful to read some books. Not just small publishers either - larger houses such as Tor have this problem.
The fact that you don't know the difference between editing and copy-editing speaks volumes about what you don't know about publishing. Editing is a valuable contribution to the publishing process and can make the difference between a mid-shelf and blockbuster book. I don't know what books you've been reading, but aside from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", I can't remember the last time I read the kinds of errors you describe. Outside of a self-published book, that is.
2) Marketing: In this case it'll be handled, for free, but your readership. Get some decent reviews on Amazon, end up on their "You might also like" list, and things go from there. Classic word of mouth only with a much larger potential base. If you get mentioned on a blog with a decent reader base things will move even quicker.
No. No it won't. Marketing is anything but free and can even fail disastrously for a well-written, well-edited book. Most people who read books and pass it on word of mouth don't do so through the comments on Amazon or any blog. There are obvious exceptions: technical books or certain areas of non-fiction, but in general, people who read don't care what Joe Dirt has to say about an author.
3) Cover/format: Format can be handled by any modern word processor with templates (search online - free ones abound, for everything from novels to screenplays), and cover can be done for a small fee to a decent artist or (if you have them) friends with talent. Why pay the publisher rate?
For the same reason you can tell when your local car dealership's daughter is the model for his commercial and his cousin is behind the camera. If your expertise is writing - which it obviously is or you wouldn't be trying to publish a book, right? Right? - what makes you think you're also an expert marketer/artist/graphic design/layout artist?
4) Connections: See 2. This, again, is obviated by skipping the industry entirely.
Much like the music business, it's much easier for amateur writers to get their stuff in front of the public. If you're decent, get yourself on even one decently read blog and you'll get yourself started. Yes, there's a lot of "if" coming off this plan but it's just as bad with an agent/publishing house, only you're less likely to get screwed with a bad contract.
Again, no. No, no, no. Music is disposable. It takes two minutes to listen to a song, and probably even less to decide if you like it. Or, you may follow the critic's advice and listen to it at least seven times before deciding. Total investment: 15 minutes. Reading takes time. It takes an investment. It takes a commitment from the reader. Most people, especially voracious readers aren't going to waste their time on something that hasn't been vetted by someone who knows what they're talking about: a trusted friend or a publishing house. Publishers are the front-line against the sea of crap that people like you think requires nothing but exposure to make successful.
One final note: if you self-publish, good luck ever getting a reputable publishing company to look twice at you. Yes, it can happen. I was able to find seven cases in the history of publishing where it happened, though I personally know of three cases where the author was rejected explicitly for it.
A "right" is an entitlement to a moral or social principle. Rights, are by their very definition entitlements.
Fine, but troll? Off-topic, maybe, but trolling? If you honestly think your rights in American haven't been seriously degraded in the last 30 years, you're the one living under a bridge.