That's like saying that people have been recruited before movies. Sure - but once movies came out, those patriotic newsreels were a big thing in theaters.
And it's certainly easier to get their propaganda out there when it's searchable and nobody bothers to take it down on the false theory that it's better to listen in... it's not, because we're not gathering evidence to take them to trial, and it's not like we can go there, knock in their door, and arrest them.
They use the accounts, as well as facebook accoiunts, for multiple reasons:
1 Communications between cells using code phrases
2 Distribution of propaganda (fear and terror - after all, they're terrorists)
3.Recruiting
Take down one channel of communication (a twitter for facebook account), and you have to tell people where to look for the next one. Do it often enough, quickly enough, and you've crippled their means of communications to the outside world. Sure, accounts are free - but imagine if you had to buy a new burner phone AND tell everyone your new phone number, every day.
The Apollo 11 moon landing broadcasts had lots of explanations about the mission, the need for getting the trajectory just right, the risks, the hardware (everything from how fuel cells work to the LEM to the Command and Service modules, the escape tower, the launch vehicle, etc.), how you can't just turn around in mid-flight and return to earth. They had LOTS of hours of programming time to fill, and they filled it with rocket scientists.
Anyone who watched Walter Cronkite ("Uncle Walter") covering the mission learned a lot, and not just over a one-hour interval (the "hour of code"), but for eight days. They even explained the how and why for the decontamination procedures, live, as they were taking place in the water after splashdown and that the astronauts would be in isolation...
Kids were also encouraged to bring in newspaper articles for class discussion. It was on everyone's lips. The hope to reach 200 million people for an hour each pales in comparison to the number of people who watched the first steps on the moon.
You need some vehicle for "critical thinking" otherwise you are just spewing a bunch of abstract theory without concrete examples. Being able to show concrete examples ties the theory back into reality and provides opportunities to highlight relationships which is really important for making the theory stick.
So do like one of my teachers did decades ago - teach kids how to deconstruct advertising. Far more useful in terms of immediate application that will also benefit them over the long term, no matter what they end up doing. And it doesn't need a computer...
Well the sooner we can destroy the fallacy that coding is something beyond the ken of most mere mortals, the sooner we can get salaries down to what they should be
I hear Ben Carson is doing the same for brain surgery.
is billing as the largest learning event in history.
The Apollo 11 moon landing was a far bigger learning event. It not only inspired a generation to learn more (far more than Minecraft will), but it also had huge social implications.
Are you living under a rock? It's not exploitive, it's education. Students get real-world experience while the business gets free labor.
My alma mater requires that every degree has co-op time. Employers like that the graduates have real-world experience.
No, I do not live under a rock. People who do unpaid internships end up with almost no better odds getting a job than those who didn't do an internship, and their pay when they got a job was less.
It may make you less employable.
he National Association of Colleges and Employers recently conducted a survey that concluded that those who completed paid internships had an advantage over those who had unpaid internships. For starters, 63.1% of paid interns were offered a job after graduation, while only 37% of unpaid interns were offered a job. That figure is only slightly higher than the 35% who were offered a job with no internship experience at all.
It can result in a lower salary.
In that same survey, those who interned at a paying position reported earning more money as well. Paid interns reported earning a median salary of $51,930 at their first jobs. Graduates who did unpaid internships earned a median of $35,721, which is less than the $37,087 median salary for those who did no internship at all.
Obviously, if employers are paying more for people who haven't done unpaid internships, they see internships as just a supply of free labor, not worth anything when it comes time to that first paying job.
I wouldn't be surprised if students sue their universities, because the unpaid internship is discriminatory (people who can't afford to work for free are excluded). Unpaid internships didn't always exist... they're just another way to get the equivalent of slave labor, without the responsibilities that a slave owner has towards their slaves even in biblical times.
Now that more women are becoming professionals than men, I expect the income disparity to pretty much disappear. One hindrance is that women bosses tend to be harsher on their female workers... there is going to be pressure for that to change as well.
As you pointed out, internships do lower the eventual salary for the intern holds true even for paid internships. Co-ops aren't necessary - the same experience can be gained working part-time, and there would be more paid part-time positions available if co-ops were removed from the curriculum. Since they're not in the classroom, why not just cut the time spent in a co-op off the credits necessary for graduation, and let the students make money instead of accumulating debt?
After all, 5 years later your co-op experience is worth nothing, your real work experience defines you.
Two interns are working for free. One can tell their friends that they are making 1000 times more than the other without lying, because 1000 times nothing is still nothing. It's only subject to a limited set of interpretations, even though it's described using language. None of those interpretations that arrive at the correct answer would have the first intern making more than the second one. Not too complicated....
so benefits to the school were indirect: they weren't collecting tuition for the kids' work with us.
Did you ask them if they were paying tuition at the same time? Interns ae afraid to speak out because they don't want to be blackballed, but it's quite common..
I never said it was. I was pointing out that Saudi Arabia, a sharia law country, seems to be immune from accountability, trade sanctions, etc. because OIL.
I would think it is obvious that the value of anything goes down the more common it becomes.
And that's exactly what has happened - a degree ain't worth what it used to be...
When compared to the more likely alternative, where they don't get a degree and simply have less total potential, it doesn't seem like a waste.
And yet, skipping the degree phase and starting out on the labor force immediately allows them to accumulate capital instead of debt. And we can't discount the value of an extra five years of experience. Between the glut, robots, and offshoring, it's only going to get worse
More women graduate than men. More women than men work in professional jobs.
Another Canadian here. The study confirms the truth of this in Canada, and ISTR that more women than men have been graduating in the US for quite some time.
However, pointing out these facts will get you labeled as a misogynistic bastard by the SJWs who are more interested in pot-stirring to keep the attention and money rolling in, than in acknowledging that in may ways, the pendulum has now swung back, and then some. Me, they'll just say I don't count.
If 40% of those university graduates are still overqualified by their mid-thirties, they've already been typecast by their experience in the 25-35 range.
If the co-op was done for free, it's exploitative. The school benefits (they continue to collect tuition), the business benefits (free labor), the student gets screwed from both ends.
If you click on the last link, you'd have read that the following fields are the worst:
business, management and public administration
social and behavioural sciences and law
humanities.
No surprises there...
The pdf also states:
Conversely, the lowest rates were
found in education; architecture,
engineering and related technologies;
and health and related fields (with
percentages varying between 9%
and 13% in all three cases).
It's 25% more, whereas it would have been hoped that it would be 25% less as things evolve. 2 out of 5 graduates not being able to find jobs that their education was supposed to prepare them for is a huge waste of human potential.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like saying that people have been recruited before movies. Sure - but once movies came out, those patriotic newsreels were a big thing in theaters.
And it's certainly easier to get their propaganda out there when it's searchable and nobody bothers to take it down on the false theory that it's better to listen in ... it's not, because we're not gathering evidence to take them to trial, and it's not like we can go there, knock in their door, and arrest them.
Seems to me they've been able to give real-life experience on the ground against their enemies for quite some time.
They use the accounts, as well as facebook accoiunts, for multiple reasons:
1 Communications between cells using code phrases
2 Distribution of propaganda (fear and terror - after all, they're terrorists)
3.Recruiting
Take down one channel of communication (a twitter for facebook account), and you have to tell people where to look for the next one. Do it often enough, quickly enough, and you've crippled their means of communications to the outside world. Sure, accounts are free - but imagine if you had to buy a new burner phone AND tell everyone your new phone number, every day.
No keyboard, no mouse, no screen ... cheaper to just buy a laptop, or even a full Chromebook.
The Apollo 11 moon landing broadcasts had lots of explanations about the mission, the need for getting the trajectory just right, the risks, the hardware (everything from how fuel cells work to the LEM to the Command and Service modules, the escape tower, the launch vehicle, etc.), how you can't just turn around in mid-flight and return to earth. They had LOTS of hours of programming time to fill, and they filled it with rocket scientists.
Anyone who watched Walter Cronkite ("Uncle Walter") covering the mission learned a lot, and not just over a one-hour interval (the "hour of code"), but for eight days. They even explained the how and why for the decontamination procedures, live, as they were taking place in the water after splashdown and that the astronauts would be in isolation ...
Kids were also encouraged to bring in newspaper articles for class discussion. It was on everyone's lips. The hope to reach 200 million people for an hour each pales in comparison to the number of people who watched the first steps on the moon.
You need some vehicle for "critical thinking" otherwise you are just spewing a bunch of abstract theory without concrete examples. Being able to show concrete examples ties the theory back into reality and provides opportunities to highlight relationships which is really important for making the theory stick.
So do like one of my teachers did decades ago - teach kids how to deconstruct advertising. Far more useful in terms of immediate application that will also benefit them over the long term, no matter what they end up doing. And it doesn't need a computer ...
Well the sooner we can destroy the fallacy that coding is something beyond the ken of most mere mortals, the sooner we can get salaries down to what they should be
I hear Ben Carson is doing the same for brain surgery.
Where's the embrace and extinguish?
Try getting a Minecraft competitor to market.
is billing as the largest learning event in history.
The Apollo 11 moon landing was a far bigger learning event. It not only inspired a generation to learn more (far more than Minecraft will), but it also had huge social implications.
Are you living under a rock? It's not exploitive, it's education. Students get real-world experience while the business gets free labor.
My alma mater requires that every degree has co-op time. Employers like that the graduates have real-world experience.
No, I do not live under a rock. People who do unpaid internships end up with almost no better odds getting a job than those who didn't do an internship, and their pay when they got a job was less.
It may make you less employable.
he National Association of Colleges and Employers recently conducted a survey that concluded that those who completed paid internships had an advantage over those who had unpaid internships. For starters, 63.1% of paid interns were offered a job after graduation, while only 37% of unpaid interns were offered a job. That figure is only slightly higher than the 35% who were offered a job with no internship experience at all.
It can result in a lower salary.
In that same survey, those who interned at a paying position reported earning more money as well. Paid interns reported earning a median salary of $51,930 at their first jobs. Graduates who did unpaid internships earned a median of $35,721, which is less than the $37,087 median salary for those who did no internship at all.
Obviously, if employers are paying more for people who haven't done unpaid internships, they see internships as just a supply of free labor, not worth anything when it comes time to that first paying job.
I wouldn't be surprised if students sue their universities, because the unpaid internship is discriminatory (people who can't afford to work for free are excluded). Unpaid internships didn't always exist ... they're just another way to get the equivalent of slave labor, without the responsibilities that a slave owner has towards their slaves even in biblical times.
All she was missing was lgbt and handicapped.
Now that more women are becoming professionals than men, I expect the income disparity to pretty much disappear. One hindrance is that women bosses tend to be harsher on their female workers ... there is going to be pressure for that to change as well.
As you pointed out, internships do lower the eventual salary for the intern holds true even for paid internships. Co-ops aren't necessary - the same experience can be gained working part-time, and there would be more paid part-time positions available if co-ops were removed from the curriculum. Since they're not in the classroom, why not just cut the time spent in a co-op off the credits necessary for graduation, and let the students make money instead of accumulating debt?
After all, 5 years later your co-op experience is worth nothing, your real work experience defines you.
Two interns are working for free. One can tell their friends that they are making 1000 times more than the other without lying, because 1000 times nothing is still nothing. It's only subject to a limited set of interpretations, even though it's described using language. None of those interpretations that arrive at the correct answer would have the first intern making more than the second one. Not too complicated ....
"Those are the fields you should shoot for."
"But math is hard."
-Barbie
Ouch! :-)
so benefits to the school were indirect: they weren't collecting tuition for the kids' work with us.
Did you ask them if they were paying tuition at the same time? Interns ae afraid to speak out because they don't want to be blackballed, but it's quite common..
Iraq wasn't a Sharia law country.
I never said it was. I was pointing out that Saudi Arabia, a sharia law country, seems to be immune from accountability, trade sanctions, etc. because OIL.
I would think it is obvious that the value of anything goes down the more common it becomes.
And that's exactly what has happened - a degree ain't worth what it used to be ...
When compared to the more likely alternative, where they don't get a degree and simply have less total potential, it doesn't seem like a waste.
And yet, skipping the degree phase and starting out on the labor force immediately allows them to accumulate capital instead of debt. And we can't discount the value of an extra five years of experience. Between the glut, robots, and offshoring, it's only going to get worse
More women graduate than men. More women than men work in professional jobs.
Another Canadian here. The study confirms the truth of this in Canada, and ISTR that more women than men have been graduating in the US for quite some time.
However, pointing out these facts will get you labeled as a misogynistic bastard by the SJWs who are more interested in pot-stirring to keep the attention and money rolling in, than in acknowledging that in may ways, the pendulum has now swung back, and then some. Me, they'll just say I don't count.
Ever seen it used that way? Seriously?
If 40% of those university graduates are still overqualified by their mid-thirties, they've already been typecast by their experience in the 25-35 range.
If the co-op was done for free, it's exploitative. The school benefits (they continue to collect tuition), the business benefits (free labor), the student gets screwed from both ends.
So are you brilliant, or a turd?
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. :-)
business, management and public administration
social and behavioural sciences and law
humanities.
No surprises there ...
The pdf also states:
Conversely, the lowest rates were found in education; architecture, engineering and related technologies; and health and related fields (with percentages varying between 9% and 13% in all three cases).
Those are the fields you should shoot for.
It's 25% more, whereas it would have been hoped that it would be 25% less as things evolve. 2 out of 5 graduates not being able to find jobs that their education was supposed to prepare them for is a huge waste of human potential.
Depends on which province you reside in. Fees vary greatly.