And less informed laypeople will gravitate towards those that support their own particular bias. Actually, most laypeople don't know that these journals exist - legitimate or otherwise - until their favorite spin doctor whips one out to support his/her opinion of the week.
Gas stations in the US used to provide good information. I think that started to change as we moved towards "self-serve", though I can't really say why. Maybe because the employees were less likely to be long-term employees and also less likely to be "neighborhood local".
No, I think he's the one who agressively courted my friend on an online dating site. And then on another site, using the same picture but totally different name, profile, etc., also aggressively courted. And did I mention he's absoutely gorgeous and we traced his picture to a modeling site? It was fun.:-)
Hopefully, the interviewer also knows the more reputable journals and will suspect that the one mentioned casually is a fake. And will then do some follow-up research after the interview. While will reveal the interviewee as a fake.
Reportedly, long essays with big words also help your SAT writing score. And in my state - which shall remain nameless - it definitely seems to help on the standardized writing tests.
Grading is about the grade. Learning is about the feedback. Unfortunately, more and more, the educational experience is about the grade or standardized test score rather than learning. ..and learning to love learning. ..and learning how to learn. Kids don't have to show how their work in math anymore; all the teachers care about is the answer. We shouldn't be surprised at this latest development - well, not too terribly surprised.
I'm currently tutoring my daughter in statistics for the same reason. She's in college and while she's flipping through her homework appliication and her e-textbook, I'm flipping through my old statistics books, plus a couple of study guides I picked up.
Also, sometimes the homework application is simply wrong. (Doesn't every tool/program have at least one bug?) My sister, a teacher, uses one - mandated by the community college where she teaches. Occasionally, she has to override the application so that she can mark correct problems that the application marked wrong. The students alert her, she checks and then overrides when the application is clearly wrong.
Thanks. My brain is biased towards congested airports. Used to live near DC. And there's an occasional news story about air mishaps in/near NY that always mention an errant helicopter.
I care about previous administrations. And I too, speak up about the current administration. But I always state in a way that indicates that it's the government period, not just the current adminstration, lest anyone start about how any one administration is infinitely better than the other. You choose not to do that. Fine. I choose to do that.
Hasn't the general public known for quite some time? Not the details, but the generalities. And the politicians have known "forever"? What will they do? Absolutely nothing. A former presidential candidate stood behind the "I've managed my money in accordance with applicable laws blah-blah". And the lawmakers will ensure that those loopholes. Actually, I think only poor and middle-class folks consider them loopholes. The barely rich aspire to use them and the super-rich just shrug their shoulders. Legislators consider them good for the economy, innovation, blah-blah.
I would find it hard to believe that there's anything currently on the books that would justify such a classification, though not for lack of trying. And if I'm, right, I'm sure that some legislator will step forward with a law to close that gap so that they can indeed be classified.
Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If it has happened, revealing it would justify the TSA's actions, but it would scare the hell out of the public, especially the flying public, and put a real dent in airline traffic and profits - at least for a while. Fear of great economic harm would be a reason to keep it quiet. The government AND airlines would have a reason to keep it quiet.
And the smart terrorists would know this. But I'm sure there are dumb ones out there, especially domestic ones. Or dumb wanna-be terrorists, whether domestic or not. Just because we don't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist and don't get caught. And no, I'm not a fan of the TSA.
For a while, some insurance companies were doing this for big ticket treatments. They would offer financial incentives for patients to go abroad to get treated. I think state lawmakers started restricting that, at the request of citizens of employers. In the anecdotes I read, the patients were going to India. I wouldn't want to have to endure extended travel to return home, especially since, in my view, a lot of the savings would end up going in the insurance executives' pockets.
I wouldn't nationalize them. But I would have the government kick-start the effort, as they have in other areas (Internet, GPS, space exploration) and then let the "free" market do its thing.
Agreed, especially the part about the government scientists. If we weren't currently in such a "limit the government" mode, NIH - or some similar entity - could get the ball rolling. Just as DOD and NASA laid the groundwork for some now-commerical enterprises (anything Internet-related, GPS, private space exploration), NIH could do the same for drugs and medical devices. Granted, the government is not always as cost-effective as it should be, but in this case, what would be lost, given how expensive the industry is anyway?
And for publicly-traded companies who answer to Wall Street, their primary concern is with hittin the analysts' magic quarterly numbers. So they can't take a chance on someone like Steve Jobs. He may represent the remote possibility of a big bonanza down the road but the manager may not be there to see it if he misses the next couple of quarterly "numbers".
Slashdot Mirror
And less informed laypeople will gravitate towards those that support their own particular bias. Actually, most laypeople don't know that these journals exist - legitimate or otherwise - until their favorite spin doctor whips one out to support his/her opinion of the week.
There are flaws in peer review here, too.
Gas stations in the US used to provide good information. I think that started to change as we moved towards "self-serve", though I can't really say why. Maybe because the employees were less likely to be long-term employees and also less likely to be "neighborhood local".
No, I think he's the one who agressively courted my friend on an online dating site. And then on another site, using the same picture but totally different name, profile, etc., also aggressively courted. And did I mention he's absoutely gorgeous and we traced his picture to a modeling site? It was fun. :-)
Hopefully, the interviewer also knows the more reputable journals and will suspect that the one mentioned casually is a fake. And will then do some follow-up research after the interview. While will reveal the interviewee as a fake.
Reportedly, long essays with big words also help your SAT writing score. And in my state - which shall remain nameless - it definitely seems to help on the standardized writing tests.
Grading is about the grade. Learning is about the feedback. Unfortunately, more and more, the educational experience is about the grade or standardized test score rather than learning. . .and learning to love learning. . .and learning how to learn. Kids don't have to show how their work in math anymore; all the teachers care about is the answer. We shouldn't be surprised at this latest development - well, not too terribly surprised.
I'm currently tutoring my daughter in statistics for the same reason. She's in college and while she's flipping through her homework appliication and her e-textbook, I'm flipping through my old statistics books, plus a couple of study guides I picked up. Also, sometimes the homework application is simply wrong. (Doesn't every tool/program have at least one bug?) My sister, a teacher, uses one - mandated by the community college where she teaches. Occasionally, she has to override the application so that she can mark correct problems that the application marked wrong. The students alert her, she checks and then overrides when the application is clearly wrong.
Thanks. My brain is biased towards congested airports. Used to live near DC. And there's an occasional news story about air mishaps in/near NY that always mention an errant helicopter.
I care about previous administrations. And I too, speak up about the current administration. But I always state in a way that indicates that it's the government period, not just the current adminstration, lest anyone start about how any one administration is infinitely better than the other. You choose not to do that. Fine. I choose to do that.
Hasn't the general public known for quite some time? Not the details, but the generalities. And the politicians have known "forever"? What will they do? Absolutely nothing. A former presidential candidate stood behind the "I've managed my money in accordance with applicable laws blah-blah". And the lawmakers will ensure that those loopholes. Actually, I think only poor and middle-class folks consider them loopholes. The barely rich aspire to use them and the super-rich just shrug their shoulders. Legislators consider them good for the economy, innovation, blah-blah.
You mean to launder it?
I would find it hard to believe that there's anything currently on the books that would justify such a classification, though not for lack of trying. And if I'm, right, I'm sure that some legislator will step forward with a law to close that gap so that they can indeed be classified.
Love your first point. But wouldn't helicopters at least use air traffic control? Or something analogous that's still publicly funded?
I'm starting to wonder what is motivating the law makers when they repeatedly come back with a worse proposal than what was just rejected.
Start with the fact that they are politicians first and lawmakers second. Add to that the fact that there are some who are not particularly bright.
Writing the law correctly and unambiguously would just be too much of a bother for the congresscritters.
Not only a bother, but intellectually beyond the reach of some members of Congress.
As opposed to previous administrations, which did none of that, ever.
Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If it has happened, revealing it would justify the TSA's actions, but it would scare the hell out of the public, especially the flying public, and put a real dent in airline traffic and profits - at least for a while. Fear of great economic harm would be a reason to keep it quiet. The government AND airlines would have a reason to keep it quiet.
And the smart terrorists would know this. But I'm sure there are dumb ones out there, especially domestic ones. Or dumb wanna-be terrorists, whether domestic or not. Just because we don't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist and don't get caught. And no, I'm not a fan of the TSA.
Unfortunately, that's how much of the market is today, anyway.
For a while, some insurance companies were doing this for big ticket treatments. They would offer financial incentives for patients to go abroad to get treated. I think state lawmakers started restricting that, at the request of citizens of employers. In the anecdotes I read, the patients were going to India. I wouldn't want to have to endure extended travel to return home, especially since, in my view, a lot of the savings would end up going in the insurance executives' pockets.
I wouldn't nationalize them. But I would have the government kick-start the effort, as they have in other areas (Internet, GPS, space exploration) and then let the "free" market do its thing.
Agreed, especially the part about the government scientists. If we weren't currently in such a "limit the government" mode, NIH - or some similar entity - could get the ball rolling. Just as DOD and NASA laid the groundwork for some now-commerical enterprises (anything Internet-related, GPS, private space exploration), NIH could do the same for drugs and medical devices. Granted, the government is not always as cost-effective as it should be, but in this case, what would be lost, given how expensive the industry is anyway?
And for publicly-traded companies who answer to Wall Street, their primary concern is with hittin the analysts' magic quarterly numbers. So they can't take a chance on someone like Steve Jobs. He may represent the remote possibility of a big bonanza down the road but the manager may not be there to see it if he misses the next couple of quarterly "numbers".
Current Congress (especially the House). . .Bush. . .not a lot of difference. :-)