You cant count americans in that. The american education is so bad that a large swath think that europe is a country.
Of course the USA wanted Europe to become a country like the US after WWII and embraced this age old idea of "The United States of Europe". After all us Americans expect the whole world to copy us eventually;^)
isnt that the point, if you looked everywhere in the country and could not find qualified personal, then you get into the H1 program??
In *theory* yes, in practice there are a few loopholes...
1. Pay at least $60K and the position is *deemed* to be highly qualified 2. Hire for a University 3. Advertise widely for a junior title position and hire a few on the cheap, then use this salary level to automatically qualify future H1b candidates by saying it is the same title as the previous position already advertised and filled (the trick used by the big consulting companies that hire many folks with "identical" titles).
Fixing the loopholes will go quite a ways to fixing the problem...
The FDA is analyzing adverse events reported to the agency regarding homeopathic teething tablets and gels, including seizures in infants and children who were given these products, since a 2010 safety alert about homeopathic teething tablets. The FDA is currently investigating this issue, including testing product samples. The agency will continue to communicate with the public as more information is available.
Reference to adverse event reports here. Multitudes of reports reference events of seizures by infants.
Laboratory Analysis of Homeopathic Teething Tablets
FDA has completed testing of homeopathic teething tablets labeled as containing belladonna and other ingredients and marketed by CVS and Hyland’s Inc. Our testing found that the belladonna alkaloids (atropine and scopolamine) content and coffea cruda (caffeine) content is not uniform among the manufactured tablets. FDA analysis found the levels of atropine and scopolamine in some of the CVS tablets and the levels of scopolamine in some of the Hyland’s tablets far exceeded the amount stated on the products’ labels.
This is despite Standard Homeopathic Corporation (the manufacturer of Hyland brand Teething Tablets) insistent claims in voluntary reports that "Manufacture and processing occurred within established procedures to ensure product quality."
So you are the administrator of the FDA and are sitting on the pile of adverse event reports and have this completed laboratory testing report.... What would you do?
I'd advocate for liability for the companies that employ the engineers. In construction, the engineers are often not directly responsible unless you can prove intent, although they may lose a license in cases of severe incompetence. The construction company may be on the line for some of the construction costs, but often the governments involved ends up paying for those sorts of losses. In most cases however, it's not necessarily the engineers but the construction company and/or their subcontractors trying to squeeze out a few dollars in the process that are the problem.
AFAIK, it doesn't take *severe* incompetence for structural/mechanical/civil/electrical Engineers to be sanctioned or potentially lose their license. Simply not following standard engineering practice or signing off something which is outside your area of practice (which often implies culpable negligence) is enough.
Companies can't simply hire "engineers" to perform engineering in most fields, they often have to hire Engineering companies whose principals are actually licensed Engineers, or if they employ chief Engineers who are not principals in the company, these employees have to at least have signature authority to sign off on designs and/or specifications (and any waivers the eventually occur). It is the Engineers who put their licenses on the line when they sign-off on specifications.
Of course if the construction company doesn't follow the engineering specs, or if they employ an "technician" that signs off on a waiver of the approved spec, the construction company is generally fully responsible and the Engineer or Engineering company is off the hook. In reality on any project there are many waivers and so-called "equivalent-substitutions" used by contractors and sub-contractors that may meet the letter original spec but are inferior in some way which causes a problem. This is generally when the lawyers come out.
I don't think Feynman said that, but apparently he did write this...
Now although ice has a “rigid” crystalline form, its temperature can change—ice has heat. If we wish, we can change the amount of heat. What is the heat in the case of ice? The atoms are not standing still. They are jiggling and vibrating. So even though there is a definite order to the crystal—a definite structure—all of the atoms are vibrating “in place.” As we increase the temperature, they vibrate with greater and greater amplitude, until they shake themselves out of place. We call this melting. As we decrease the temperature, the vibration decreases and decreases until, at absolute zero, there is a minimum amount of vibration that the atoms can have, but not zero. This minimum amount of motion that atoms can have is not enough to melt a substance, with one exception: helium. Helium merely decreases the atomic motions as much as it can, but even at absolute zero there is still enough motion to keep it from freezing. Helium, even at absolute zero, does not freeze, unless the pressure is made so great as to make the atoms squash together. If we increase the pressure, we can make it solidify.
I think most physicists would agree that even in the ground state, a crystal will have some "motion" which is related to their zero-point energy.
Is it not an even douche-baggier thing to do to dump lava onto someone else's property to keep them off of it, than to buy up every piece of surrounding property and try to prevent their access by blocking the easements that are required to prevent just such a thing?
It seems like a common thing for rich douche-bags to attempt to commandeer public property like...
It's not stretch for rich douche-bags to think they can outspend/outlawyer a lowly citizen...
FWIW this shit happens all the time. Sadly I got to see this when I was young, when my father bought some property to build a house, but unbeknownst to us at the time, a big real-estate developer who was mad that he didn't get the property, quickly bought an adjacent ~1-foot strip wide easement next to the property to prevent access from the nearest street in hopes to convince my dad to sell him the property. Fortunately, my dad was able to negotiate street access through an adjacent subdivision on the other side, rendering his strip-property worthless (a couple years later, he quit-claim titled the strip to my dad to avoid being required by the city to make sidewalk improvements all along his 1-foot wide easement next to street).
I don't speak but a handful of words in a very short list of languages, I'm certainly no expert in language, but aren't there some languages that are so nuanced that a slight change in inflection, or tone, or emphasis, or maybe even cadence changes the entire meaning of what's being said? Wouldn't that be rather difficult to code for?
Two things... 1. I think they are thinking about a computer database of text not audible data base. 2. Nobody really technically "codes" this stuff anymore, a deep learning networks is conceived and configured in a framework and then trained with petabytes of data.
If successful, this moonshot for translation could radically change how accessible materials in many languages are to the rest of the English speaking world.
about 2 Billion people live in areas will be under water if all ice melts. This wil mean large scale suffering.
FTFY. Not all disasters result in war, but all result in suffering. For example, Black Plague (1350), Year w/o a Summer (1816), Chinese Floods (1887, 1931), Spanish Flu (1918), Indian Tsunami (2004).
On the other hand, some disasters are brought on by war. For example 1938 Yellow River Flood among others (some think the Spanish Flu spread might have been facilitated by WWI)...
I have seen a few documentaries which make thorium look promising. But I don't really know enough about it.
Okay, I'll bite... Thorium is 20 years away at best.
If we ignore the "nuclear proliferation problem" for the moment, and just look at the technical issues, the engineering problems that need to be solved are quite numerous. Nearly all operational research has been done with MSRs (molten-salt-reactors) which have some potential long-term issues with corrosion and metal embrittlement due to exposure to high temperatures and high neutron flux densities that need to be studied and worked out. Alternative reactors (such as pebble-based) have other unknown problems like economical fuel manufacturing. Part of the economy of Thorium is the breeder aspect, but nobody really knows the full process/engineering-scope needed for reprocessing either (esp if you have to solve the "nuclear proliferation problem"). Then just like other nuclear technologies, there's the long-term cost issues associated with decommisioning/decontaminating plants after they reach their useful life time.
Maybe if the technology is promising enough people will spend more money to solve these issues, but these have been future problems for so long because it hasn't been as economical as people once thought.
What's to stop people from going to Venezuela and buying 10 copies of Final Cut Pro and bringing it back to the US? Unless you are suggesting that they start region locking software, controlling which country you can use software in depending on where you bought it.
Perhaps you should think about using Cuba as your example communist country in the future... Oh wait, you can't buy Final Cut Pro there either because of the US boycott, Ecuador anyone?
Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein both did exactly this. You really can't understand quantum mechanics or general relativity without math. You can think you do, and both of them were great at providing simple explanations that gave the illusion of understanding... but it was only an illusion, which of course they knew perfectly well.
I don't know about Einstein, but Feynman was also good at explaining things using math in a way that gave a typical physics student the illusion that you understood it. But that was only an illusion, as when you got back to your dorm room to do the homework you realized that he explained it in a way that you could not replicate because to him the math (usually path integrals) was so intuitive that he could breeze through it on the chalkboard, but you would actually have to grunge out the calculus because of your relative ignorance. Even the TAs weren't able to help you understand it the way he explained, but they would usually also have to grunge out the math to explain it to you.
It was then you realized that not only was he good at explaining things at a high level that gave you the illusion of understanding, but he knew the stuff so thoroughly in a way that you only wish you could understood it, someday.
Even in Physics X, he always had a few mathematical gems that seemed completely unrecreatable outside the lecture room. And if you ever heard him describe his techniques to pickup women, well, those were also something you might think you understand, but were totally unable to replicate later either...;^)
Actually natural selection *can* explain how the 6502 had two different indirect access modes.
The PDP-11 (one of the great ancestor computers) had two different indirect access modes (6n and 7n). The computer eco system flourished and spawned many different types of computer chips, one of those which was the 6800 which shared the instruction set traits from that line. However, later, the computer eco system got more price competitive from descendants from other computer chip lines. This put evolutionary pressure on then existent microprocessors to reduce their cost. Features needed to be jettisoned from to reduce the cost, and other competitive processors only had one indirect access mode where the 6500 processor line kept two different indirect modes in the instruction set, but jettsoned the "B" accumulator. Natural selection somehow allowed this instruction set selection trait to survive in it's successor the 6502...
Not making any value judgement about the value of the *un-RISCi-ness* of retaining two different indirect access modes, but natural selection somehow allowed them to both survive the evolutionary pressure, so who am I to argue that it was some Intelligent Design process...
Of course the researchers are probably trying to apply the wrong methods (as many do).
It is not necessary to appeal to a higher power to reason by the 6502 was able to retain two different indirect addressing modes, it was simply the unexpected result of evolutionary pressure and natural selection. Now as to why the PDP-11 had two different indirect addressing modes, that is another question as it was certainly a mutation of the PDP-5;^)
Exceptions: certain ivy league law and business schools, or, if I utterly fail at parenting, a child who wants to pursue some liberal arts field (that's not a fine art) and has an excellent academic record I may agree to fund, under very strong conditions. Basically if you cannot place in the top 10% of your class, every year, I'm cutting you off until you find a cheaper school and pick up a utility degree that will at least let you get a job that doesn't involve hamburgers or coffee.
So your child somehow manages the amazing accomplishment of being accepted to an Ivy league school, and your ultimatum condition on them is that they must place at the top 10% in an Ivy league school or you cut them off? You know that fully 1/2 of the students they are competing against are in the top 1% of all college prospects, right?
So with all that said, I can understand why they don't see applications for a lot of people outside the 1%. While I haven't seen anyone put their thoughts into this topic into a serious condensed form, this is the prevailing attitude I think. We're just not seeing why we should pay so much money for so little practical return, and we're not wealthy enough to remotely consider the impractical return.
Well I can certainly see why they are unlikely to see an application from one of your kids... Certainly there isn't a compelling reason to spend your hard earned money to send your kids to an Ivy if you don't think it's worth the money (it is your money after all).
The question you should be asking yourself, though, is are your holding your kid back, or helping them make a better decision. Sometimes, the answer isn't obvious even if you think about it very deeply. I'm not saying this applies to you, but I've found (after talking to 100's of parents about college choices for their students over many years), parents often don't seem to have sufficient insights into their kids makeup to probably the answer this question very objectively, yet conversely, intelligent kids often seem to be quite sensitive to their parents financial position on college support and willing to sell themselves short. Sad but true.
Not having gone to any Ivy, I don't know myself, but I know several folks who have and apparently this is some value there in making it to the *next-level* of certain careers, or getting certain opportunities in business or government service. Unfortunately, it is also obvious that all this intangible value is only available to those students that have certain intangible talents to get the value from the opportunities to attend such an elite school. That isn't everyone and it would be a shame to waste the money on the school if the student doesn't have those intangible talents (unless you have money to burn).
even if they are qualified, they don't actually apply (which makes it really, really hard to attend).
Thread.
Is it "fair" that people who don't apply to a college (or job) are underrepresented at that college/job? Yes, of course if fucking is! Why is this even an issue?
Is the college treating applicants "fairly"? Maybe so. Is society being "fair"? Debatable.
The applications are easier, the financial aid applications are ridiculous. After doing FAFSA, many of these top-tier schools are asking for more intrusive information than you can imagine, including what savings we have for other children and having to estimate what our income and taxes will be for the next year and the year after. I was getting infuriated with my son's forms, had to dig out old tax records, my wife is self-employed, but doesn't technically own a company (freelance), but they wouldn't accept that as an answer... the financial aid forms take 10x longer to fill out. This might be a great reason why so few poor people are doing them. One of the forms even wanted my voter registration number and date I applied for it. WTF?
I hate to break it to you, but so-called "poor" folks probably just have a handful of W2's, a couple of bank account, and maybe a 401K or two which probably means what is an intrusive examinations of finances for you, is probably just checking a few "Not Applicable" boxes on a form for them.
It's very important to you for you to believe everyone has an equal chance, isn't it?
Well, they don't. Get over it. The deck is stacked against the poor.
No it is not important to me at all that people have an equal chance, and it is of course immediately obvious that they don't because the deck is totally stacked against the poor.
However, I just hate to see people who *could* have attended college to improve their lives give up and not do so reasons based on misinformation that is all. There are plenty of good reasons that poor folks can't attend college which often have to do with nearly impossible to solve core issues (e.g., need to support family with job, no support networks in far away places, peer pressure, parental/sibling jealousy, etc), there is absolutely no reason to heap on a bunch of really bad reasons like: can't afford application cost, can't take SAT prep classes, etc which are easily overcome.
The application alone is sometimes a barrier for kids who haven't been prepared for the demands of some top schools...
FWIW, college applications are much more straightforward.... Today, it is easier than ever to apply to as many schools as you have the time and patience to do.
Time, patience, and money. Colleges have application fees. A student with, say, a ten percent chance of acceptance into an elite school who applies to ten will have good odds to make it in. If you're from a well-to-do family, paying ten seventy-five dollar application fees are the least important part of this. If you're not so well to do, however, you might apply to one elite school, but after that, your back-up application will be to the local State school.
Also, things like SAT tests cost money, too. Not to mention SAT prep classes, which the rich will buy as a matter of course and the poor have no access to.
If your family is poor, they can always apply for an NACAC application fee waiver (which most elite colleges accept). Columbia has already dropped the SAT requirement. I suspect most 'elite' schools are on the verge of dropping the SAT as requirements. Statistically, the schools have known that the SAT sucks as a predictor of anything, and the College Board has been frantically redesigning it for years in order to make it relevant again before more schools drop it and they lose their cash cow.
The myth that many parents have bought is that epsilon higher SATs correlate with delta higher chance of acceptance in some sort of fancy numerical weighting system, which couldn't be farther from the truth (at these so-called 'elite' schools). The SAT (and similar testing) is generally only used as a soft measure to pre-sort the mountain of applications a school gets. Elite schools often presort applications (because thoroughly considering 10 applications for every slot is better than slogging through 20). If you scores/grades/etc are near or above the threshold they use to pre-sort, it basically makes no difference to your acceptance (except as potentially a weird impression it might give in later evaluations it is unusually low and everything else great about an applicant).
For example, by some estimates, it is likely that Harvard will soft-cut off an SAT somewhere around 1400/1600 (which is of course pretty high, but this is Harvard and most people going into SAT-prep with designs on Harvard are already scoring that without any help). If you are scoring around 1200, it'll take quite a bit of prep to get it above this level (esp with the new rules that don't penalize guessing anymore and focus on reading comprehension). If are scoring around 1400 and the goal is to actually get into Harvard, I can guarantee you that hour-for-hour, it will be better to spend running a non-profit charity and getting a killer recommendation than toiling that hour in anonymity in an SAT prep class.
But rejecting all these poor kids and accepting many of the rich children helps perpetuate the myth!
Think about it, the top 1% kids who go to Yale are going to be successful when they graduate.
You have to remember, that Yale (and all the other 'elite' schools) simply wants to only admit people that will be successful (since successful alumni donate money to the school). Sadly, one of the best a-priori indicators of a student's success today is how successful their parents are. Believe me, if they found a better criteria to predict success, you can bet they would use it in a heartbeat.
Exactly my point. How is Harvard any more affordable for a family 100k a year than 10k?
At Harvard, a family that makes $100K/year will only pay at most $10K/year (Harvard caps tuition at 10% for income under $150k). Generally it makes it cheaper than a public university.
The application alone is sometimes a barrier for kids who haven't been prepared for the demands of some top schools. It's been a while since I filled out college applications, but Harvard's was at least straightforward - common application, addendum, essay, recommendations, and alumni interview. Anyone can complete it and get rejected. Others were an endless maze of abstract essay questions seemingly designed to keep out anyone who didn't think the right way or have the right strengths and experiences. The further schools diverge from a common application format, the more kids, no matter how qualified, will pass them over.
FWIW, college applications are much more straightforward today. Most schools** use the common application platform with a generally few addendums like the dreaded essays. Today, it is easier than ever to apply to as many schools as you have the time and patience to do. Of course making a 1/2-assed application to a school is probably a waste of time and money, the historical hoops you are referring to are largely non-existent today.
**including all Ivy Leagues (e.g., Harvard), Stanford, etc (with the notable exception of MIT).
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot didn't use the Captain Pike keyword under the story. Dammit, I'm gonna revoke their Geek Card!
Didn't happen in the new Kelvin Timeline, he was killed by Khan. Keep up with your temporal mechanics or I'll have to revoke *your* Geek Card ;^)
You cant count americans in that. The american education is so bad that a large swath think that europe is a country.
Of course the USA wanted Europe to become a country like the US after WWII and embraced this age old idea of "The United States of Europe". After all us Americans expect the whole world to copy us eventually ;^)
isnt that the point, if you looked everywhere in the country and could not find qualified personal, then you get into the H1 program??
In *theory* yes, in practice there are a few loopholes...
1. Pay at least $60K and the position is *deemed* to be highly qualified
2. Hire for a University
3. Advertise widely for a junior title position and hire a few on the cheap, then use this salary level to automatically qualify future H1b candidates by saying it is the same title as the previous position already advertised and filled (the trick used by the big consulting companies that hire many folks with "identical" titles).
Fixing the loopholes will go quite a ways to fixing the problem...
In the forest of anti-FDA and/or pro-homeopathic comments above, I was curious, so as far as I can determine, this is the FDA timeline for this...
September 30, 2016
The FDA is analyzing adverse events reported to the agency regarding homeopathic teething tablets and gels, including seizures in infants and children who were given these products, since a 2010 safety alert about homeopathic teething tablets. The FDA is currently investigating this issue, including testing product samples. The agency will continue to communicate with the public as more information is available.
Reference to adverse event reports here. Multitudes of reports reference events of seizures by infants.
January 27, 2017
Laboratory Analysis of Homeopathic Teething Tablets
FDA has completed testing of homeopathic teething tablets labeled as containing belladonna and other ingredients and marketed by CVS and Hyland’s Inc. Our testing found that the belladonna alkaloids (atropine and scopolamine) content and coffea cruda (caffeine) content is not uniform among the manufactured tablets. FDA analysis found the levels of atropine and scopolamine in some of the CVS tablets and the levels of scopolamine in some of the Hyland’s tablets far exceeded the amount stated on the products’ labels.
This is despite Standard Homeopathic Corporation (the manufacturer of Hyland brand Teething Tablets) insistent claims in voluntary reports that "Manufacture and processing occurred within established procedures to ensure product quality."
So you are the administrator of the FDA and are sitting on the pile of adverse event reports and have this completed laboratory testing report.... What would you do?
DVD Video is how people lawfully watch a Hollywood movie without having to pay the ISP $5 to $10 per GB* every time they watch it.
* Source: satellite and cellular ISPs' rate plans
Zero rating anyone? Ducks ;^)
I'd advocate for liability for the companies that employ the engineers. In construction, the engineers are often not directly responsible unless you can prove intent, although they may lose a license in cases of severe incompetence. The construction company may be on the line for some of the construction costs, but often the governments involved ends up paying for those sorts of losses. In most cases however, it's not necessarily the engineers but the construction company and/or their subcontractors trying to squeeze out a few dollars in the process that are the problem.
AFAIK, it doesn't take *severe* incompetence for structural/mechanical/civil/electrical Engineers to be sanctioned or potentially lose their license. Simply not following standard engineering practice or signing off something which is outside your area of practice (which often implies culpable negligence) is enough.
Companies can't simply hire "engineers" to perform engineering in most fields, they often have to hire Engineering companies whose principals are actually licensed Engineers, or if they employ chief Engineers who are not principals in the company, these employees have to at least have signature authority to sign off on designs and/or specifications (and any waivers the eventually occur). It is the Engineers who put their licenses on the line when they sign-off on specifications.
Of course if the construction company doesn't follow the engineering specs, or if they employ an "technician" that signs off on a waiver of the approved spec, the construction company is generally fully responsible and the Engineer or Engineering company is off the hook. In reality on any project there are many waivers and so-called "equivalent-substitutions" used by contractors and sub-contractors that may meet the letter original spec but are inferior in some way which causes a problem. This is generally when the lawyers come out.
I don't think Feynman said that, but apparently he did write this...
Now although ice has a “rigid” crystalline form, its temperature can change—ice has heat. If we wish, we can change the amount of heat. What is the heat in the case of ice? The atoms are not standing still. They are jiggling and vibrating. So even though there is a definite order to the crystal—a definite structure—all of the atoms are vibrating “in place.” As we increase the temperature, they vibrate with greater and greater amplitude, until they shake themselves out of place. We call this melting. As we decrease the temperature, the vibration decreases and decreases until, at absolute zero, there is a minimum amount of vibration that the atoms can have, but not zero. This minimum amount of motion that atoms can have is not enough to melt a substance, with one exception: helium. Helium merely decreases the atomic motions as much as it can, but even at absolute zero there is still enough motion to keep it from freezing. Helium, even at absolute zero, does not freeze, unless the pressure is made so great as to make the atoms squash together. If we increase the pressure, we can make it solidify.
I think most physicists would agree that even in the ground state, a crystal will have some "motion" which is related to their zero-point energy.
Is it not an even douche-baggier thing to do to dump lava onto someone else's property to keep them off of it, than to buy up every piece of surrounding property and try to prevent their access by blocking the easements that are required to prevent just such a thing?
It seems like a common thing for rich douche-bags to attempt to commandeer public property like...
* Vinod Khosla (martin's beach), or
* Warren Lent, Simon/Daniel Mani, and David Geffen (malibu beach)
It's not stretch for rich douche-bags to think they can outspend/outlawyer a lowly citizen...
FWIW this shit happens all the time. Sadly I got to see this when I was young, when my father bought some property to build a house, but unbeknownst to us at the time, a big real-estate developer who was mad that he didn't get the property, quickly bought an adjacent ~1-foot strip wide easement next to the property to prevent access from the nearest street in hopes to convince my dad to sell him the property. Fortunately, my dad was able to negotiate street access through an adjacent subdivision on the other side, rendering his strip-property worthless (a couple years later, he quit-claim titled the strip to my dad to avoid being required by the city to make sidewalk improvements all along his 1-foot wide easement next to street).
I don't speak but a handful of words in a very short list of languages, I'm certainly no expert in language, but aren't there some languages that are so nuanced that a slight change in inflection, or tone, or emphasis, or maybe even cadence changes the entire meaning of what's being said? Wouldn't that be rather difficult to code for?
Two things...
1. I think they are thinking about a computer database of text not audible data base.
2. Nobody really technically "codes" this stuff anymore, a deep learning networks is conceived and configured in a framework and then trained with petabytes of data.
If successful, this moonshot for translation could radically change how accessible materials in many languages are to the rest of the English speaking world.
about 2 Billion people live in areas will be under water if all ice melts. This wil mean large scale suffering .
FTFY. Not all disasters result in war, but all result in suffering. For example, Black Plague (1350), Year w/o a Summer (1816), Chinese Floods (1887, 1931), Spanish Flu (1918), Indian Tsunami (2004).
On the other hand, some disasters are brought on by war. For example 1938 Yellow River Flood among others (some think the Spanish Flu spread might have been facilitated by WWI)...
I have seen a few documentaries which make thorium look promising. But I don't really know enough about it.
Okay, I'll bite... Thorium is 20 years away at best.
If we ignore the "nuclear proliferation problem" for the moment, and just look at the technical issues, the engineering problems that need to be solved are quite numerous. Nearly all operational research has been done with MSRs (molten-salt-reactors) which have some potential long-term issues with corrosion and metal embrittlement due to exposure to high temperatures and high neutron flux densities that need to be studied and worked out. Alternative reactors (such as pebble-based) have other unknown problems like economical fuel manufacturing. Part of the economy of Thorium is the breeder aspect, but nobody really knows the full process/engineering-scope needed for reprocessing either (esp if you have to solve the "nuclear proliferation problem"). Then just like other nuclear technologies, there's the long-term cost issues associated with decommisioning/decontaminating plants after they reach their useful life time.
Maybe if the technology is promising enough people will spend more money to solve these issues, but these have been future problems for so long because it hasn't been as economical as people once thought.
Other carriers, such as Verizon, have been offering this exact plan for a while now.
Welcome to the present, AT&T.
And Verizon's TravelPass is only $2/day for Mexico and Canada... For $2/day that's quite a bit less hassle than dealing with SIM-cards...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pink%20slipped
My favorite pseudo-etymology is that your employer gives you back your pink slip, so you can sell your soul to another company...
What's to stop people from going to Venezuela and buying 10 copies of Final Cut Pro and bringing it back to the US? Unless you are suggesting that they start region locking software, controlling which country you can use software in depending on where you bought it.
Why would you go to Venezuela to buy anything? Even if you could find a flight...
Perhaps you should think about using Cuba as your example communist country in the future... Oh wait, you can't buy Final Cut Pro there either because of the US boycott, Ecuador anyone?
Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein both did exactly this. You really can't understand quantum mechanics or general relativity without math. You can think you do, and both of them were great at providing simple explanations that gave the illusion of understanding... but it was only an illusion, which of course they knew perfectly well.
I don't know about Einstein, but Feynman was also good at explaining things using math in a way that gave a typical physics student the illusion that you understood it. But that was only an illusion, as when you got back to your dorm room to do the homework you realized that he explained it in a way that you could not replicate because to him the math (usually path integrals) was so intuitive that he could breeze through it on the chalkboard, but you would actually have to grunge out the calculus because of your relative ignorance. Even the TAs weren't able to help you understand it the way he explained, but they would usually also have to grunge out the math to explain it to you.
It was then you realized that not only was he good at explaining things at a high level that gave you the illusion of understanding, but he knew the stuff so thoroughly in a way that you only wish you could understood it, someday.
Even in Physics X, he always had a few mathematical gems that seemed completely unrecreatable outside the lecture room. And if you ever heard him describe his techniques to pickup women, well, those were also something you might think you understand, but were totally unable to replicate later either... ;^)
Actually natural selection *can* explain how the 6502 had two different indirect access modes.
The PDP-11 (one of the great ancestor computers) had two different indirect access modes (6n and 7n). The computer eco system flourished and spawned many different types of computer chips, one of those which was the 6800 which shared the instruction set traits from that line. However, later, the computer eco system got more price competitive from descendants from other computer chip lines. This put evolutionary pressure on then existent microprocessors to reduce their cost. Features needed to be jettisoned from to reduce the cost, and other competitive processors only had one indirect access mode where the 6500 processor line kept two different indirect modes in the instruction set, but jettsoned the "B" accumulator. Natural selection somehow allowed this instruction set selection trait to survive in it's successor the 6502...
Not making any value judgement about the value of the *un-RISCi-ness* of retaining two different indirect access modes, but natural selection somehow allowed them to both survive the evolutionary pressure, so who am I to argue that it was some Intelligent Design process...
Of course the researchers are probably trying to apply the wrong methods (as many do).
It is not necessary to appeal to a higher power to reason by the 6502 was able to retain two different indirect addressing modes, it was simply the unexpected result of evolutionary pressure and natural selection. Now as to why the PDP-11 had two different indirect addressing modes, that is another question as it was certainly a mutation of the PDP-5 ;^)
Exceptions: certain ivy league law and business schools, or, if I utterly fail at parenting, a child who wants to pursue some liberal arts field (that's not a fine art) and has an excellent academic record I may agree to fund, under very strong conditions. Basically if you cannot place in the top 10% of your class, every year, I'm cutting you off until you find a cheaper school and pick up a utility degree that will at least let you get a job that doesn't involve hamburgers or coffee.
So your child somehow manages the amazing accomplishment of being accepted to an Ivy league school, and your ultimatum condition on them is that they must place at the top 10% in an Ivy league school or you cut them off? You know that fully 1/2 of the students they are competing against are in the top 1% of all college prospects, right?
So with all that said, I can understand why they don't see applications for a lot of people outside the 1%. While I haven't seen anyone put their thoughts into this topic into a serious condensed form, this is the prevailing attitude I think. We're just not seeing why we should pay so much money for so little practical return, and we're not wealthy enough to remotely consider the impractical return.
Well I can certainly see why they are unlikely to see an application from one of your kids... Certainly there isn't a compelling reason to spend your hard earned money to send your kids to an Ivy if you don't think it's worth the money (it is your money after all).
The question you should be asking yourself, though, is are your holding your kid back, or helping them make a better decision. Sometimes, the answer isn't obvious even if you think about it very deeply. I'm not saying this applies to you, but I've found (after talking to 100's of parents about college choices for their students over many years), parents often don't seem to have sufficient insights into their kids makeup to probably the answer this question very objectively, yet conversely, intelligent kids often seem to be quite sensitive to their parents financial position on college support and willing to sell themselves short. Sad but true.
Not having gone to any Ivy, I don't know myself, but I know several folks who have and apparently this is some value there in making it to the *next-level* of certain careers, or getting certain opportunities in business or government service. Unfortunately, it is also obvious that all this intangible value is only available to those students that have certain intangible talents to get the value from the opportunities to attend such an elite school. That isn't everyone and it would be a shame to waste the money on the school if the student doesn't have those intangible talents (unless you have money to burn).
Thread.
Is it "fair" that people who don't apply to a college (or job) are underrepresented at that college/job? Yes, of course if fucking is! Why is this even an issue?
Is the college treating applicants "fairly"? Maybe so.
Is society being "fair"? Debatable.
The applications are easier, the financial aid applications are ridiculous. After doing FAFSA, many of these top-tier schools are asking for more intrusive information than you can imagine, including what savings we have for other children and having to estimate what our income and taxes will be for the next year and the year after. I was getting infuriated with my son's forms, had to dig out old tax records, my wife is self-employed, but doesn't technically own a company (freelance), but they wouldn't accept that as an answer... the financial aid forms take 10x longer to fill out. This might be a great reason why so few poor people are doing them. One of the forms even wanted my voter registration number and date I applied for it. WTF?
I hate to break it to you, but so-called "poor" folks probably just have a handful of W2's, a couple of bank account, and maybe a 401K or two which probably means what is an intrusive examinations of finances for you, is probably just checking a few "Not Applicable" boxes on a form for them.
It's very important to you for you to believe everyone has an equal chance, isn't it?
Well, they don't. Get over it. The deck is stacked against the poor.
No it is not important to me at all that people have an equal chance, and it is of course immediately obvious that they don't because the deck is totally stacked against the poor.
However, I just hate to see people who *could* have attended college to improve their lives give up and not do so reasons based on misinformation that is all. There are plenty of good reasons that poor folks can't attend college which often have to do with nearly impossible to solve core issues (e.g., need to support family with job, no support networks in far away places, peer pressure, parental/sibling jealousy, etc), there is absolutely no reason to heap on a bunch of really bad reasons like: can't afford application cost, can't take SAT prep classes, etc which are easily overcome.
The application alone is sometimes a barrier for kids who haven't been prepared for the demands of some top schools...
FWIW, college applications are much more straightforward.... Today, it is easier than ever to apply to as many schools as you have the time and patience to do.
Time, patience, and money. Colleges have application fees. A student with, say, a ten percent chance of acceptance into an elite school who applies to ten will have good odds to make it in. If you're from a well-to-do family, paying ten seventy-five dollar application fees are the least important part of this. If you're not so well to do, however, you might apply to one elite school, but after that, your back-up application will be to the local State school.
http://www.usnews.com/educatio...
Also, things like SAT tests cost money, too. Not to mention SAT prep classes, which the rich will buy as a matter of course and the poor have no access to.
If your family is poor, they can always apply for an NACAC application fee waiver (which most elite colleges accept). Columbia has already dropped the SAT requirement. I suspect most 'elite' schools are on the verge of dropping the SAT as requirements. Statistically, the schools have known that the SAT sucks as a predictor of anything, and the College Board has been frantically redesigning it for years in order to make it relevant again before more schools drop it and they lose their cash cow.
The myth that many parents have bought is that epsilon higher SATs correlate with delta higher chance of acceptance in some sort of fancy numerical weighting system, which couldn't be farther from the truth (at these so-called 'elite' schools). The SAT (and similar testing) is generally only used as a soft measure to pre-sort the mountain of applications a school gets. Elite schools often presort applications (because thoroughly considering 10 applications for every slot is better than slogging through 20). If you scores/grades/etc are near or above the threshold they use to pre-sort, it basically makes no difference to your acceptance (except as potentially a weird impression it might give in later evaluations it is unusually low and everything else great about an applicant).
For example, by some estimates, it is likely that Harvard will soft-cut off an SAT somewhere around 1400/1600 (which is of course pretty high, but this is Harvard and most people going into SAT-prep with designs on Harvard are already scoring that without any help). If you are scoring around 1200, it'll take quite a bit of prep to get it above this level (esp with the new rules that don't penalize guessing anymore and focus on reading comprehension). If are scoring around 1400 and the goal is to actually get into Harvard, I can guarantee you that hour-for-hour, it will be better to spend running a non-profit charity and getting a killer recommendation than toiling that hour in anonymity in an SAT prep class.
But rejecting all these poor kids and accepting many of the rich children helps perpetuate the myth!
Think about it, the top 1% kids who go to Yale are going to be successful when they graduate.
You have to remember, that Yale (and all the other 'elite' schools) simply wants to only admit people that will be successful (since successful alumni donate money to the school). Sadly, one of the best a-priori indicators of a student's success today is how successful their parents are. Believe me, if they found a better criteria to predict success, you can bet they would use it in a heartbeat.
Exactly my point. How is Harvard any more affordable for a family 100k a year than 10k?
At Harvard, a family that makes $100K/year will only pay at most $10K/year (Harvard caps tuition at 10% for income under $150k). Generally it makes it cheaper than a public university.
The application alone is sometimes a barrier for kids who haven't been prepared for the demands of some top schools. It's been a while since I filled out college applications, but Harvard's was at least straightforward - common application, addendum, essay, recommendations, and alumni interview. Anyone can complete it and get rejected. Others were an endless maze of abstract essay questions seemingly designed to keep out anyone who didn't think the right way or have the right strengths and experiences. The further schools diverge from a common application format, the more kids, no matter how qualified, will pass them over.
FWIW, college applications are much more straightforward today. Most schools** use the common application platform with a generally few addendums like the dreaded essays. Today, it is easier than ever to apply to as many schools as you have the time and patience to do. Of course making a 1/2-assed application to a school is probably a waste of time and money, the historical hoops you are referring to are largely non-existent today.
**including all Ivy Leagues (e.g., Harvard), Stanford, etc (with the notable exception of MIT).