Just allow open admissions, and you'll be better for it. Allowing education at all levels to be as easy to get as water from a tap seems to work better than thinking only some anointed few are allowed access.
Somehow removing the barriers to education have helped that country do a bit better wrt dealing with the Problem of the East. So much for trying to justify a high tuition and exclusivity when it is flat wrong.
Somethings wrong with that kind of admissions policy, and it shows. Multiply that admit rate by 4 for every university and we might have something of value - there should be no valid reason to just build prestige classes. Once you get to that point, you'll start to see where having merit blind admissions generates more benefit than exclusion. One country has already done it with success as of now in the West, and they oddly are doing quite well for it in the economy - despite what some here may think.
Somehow it never stopped Ireland (admittedly a much smaller country) from just extending public funding up to college level. Ironically it even helps them to remove at least one barrier of scarcity.
Well, you shouldnt need the use of the service if you're dead. Of course if you're being frozen, there could be a problem upon being reanimated and discovering that you died, had a certificate sent to Google.
The next one will: 1) Not have the unsightly "Ivory Tower" philosophy that Google has inherited from Stanford - sorry, but Orkut "Circlejerk Bukakke" needs to lay off the Animal House. 2) Not go to countries such as China or India, but taking the greater challenge of developing in our own backyards. There's a bunch of people here that can do the work at the original rate and easily come up ahead in total cost savings versus the "rubber stamp CMM" countries. Slapping them in the face is only going to determine if your trial will be a mock one or a real one. 3) Not considering the Midwest as just "flyover country" due to lack of exclusive colleges and exclusive places. We're all not just country hicks. The ground's been good enough for farmland, manufacturing, missile silos, why not put your datacenter and other things in here as well? Or is it that you're just too busy with writing offshoring loophole law?
This or even thison one of thefollowingphones can do that kind of thing. SSH over EDGE, GPRS, or 802.11(9300i/9500) - even with the cameraless models. Full keyboard on those three and not terribly large, and looks like an older phone when folded. If you can live with the camera, go with the 9500 and a large media card, otherwise the 9300i is the best bet.
The only real thing missing from these is the SIP client that Nokia has in testing for these phones that they cant seem to release. After that, you can have all the calls you want without a conventional endpoint as well as a remote client. Other than that they might not want the Series 80 to compete with the E series, there really doesnt seem to be much of a reason to hold it back. Even then, that reason doesnt hold terribly well.
Well, they had the docs. They had the code. But dtrace and some nasty bug lopped it all off. It would have been better to lop off that specific breaking feature, and not a whole architecture that didnt have the release. If you can keep enough of sbus to run a U2 and the sbus hardware, the u1/ss5/ss20 should be a (relative) piece of cake (notwithstanding dtrace, the way to HCL out anything before a Ultra2).
I guess it depends which you value more; an immediate payback for the time you spent, or money in the bank and time saved.
Dont be so quick to consider just saving in the short term will do fine. If you want to be constantly bleeding cash for parts, fine. Just dont be disappointed by the low quality.
Start with a very highend setup(proven components that are built solidly) and keep the configuration relatively unchanged until you cannot go further with that setup. Only add components infrequently as needed(should be about 1-2 cycles/2-3 years after) and in the largest possible increments and/or highest quality as possible.
Repeat as necessary given that you have a system that will last a long while with parts that were made to last a long time, and that things just wont break 15s after the short warranty's up.
For gaming, that should keep you going for a good while.
Unfortunately it will take something a bit short of an act of $DEITY to do that in the US - Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Yale seem to be embarrassed to have to admit a class of US citizens that would tarnish their respective "Ivory Tower" image. That isnt even including the part where there would be a chance of there being a "well-informed population" to counter political manipulation.
Any idea of how it's funded over there, and if all universities over there are included? (no, I'm not interested in moving over there, just would like to hear the details of how it's helping )
I submit that the reason startups happen most often in the USA is simply because US society approves of people getting rich. There's no embarrassment in being wealthy.
Well, when ethics is no problem here, you're going to get this kind of business activity.
In many other parts of the world the rich must fear "the people". As a result the "pre-rich" give up before they start for fear of making themselves a target.
Unfortunately a few bad apples (read: Industrial/Victorian robber barons, slave labor multinationals, corporate lobbyists, Modern day off[s|w]horers, and the Enron types) have ruined things enough to require robust regulation. The US is just getting to the point where there might not be shame in being rich- just that you will fear the majority out of respect.
I ask the question - why is it fine to freely punish (via such things as offshoring and pro-employer hiring practices) "the people" who make up for the majority, versus it being a cardinal sin to keep businesses honest(as evidenced in the immigration reform and H1B/L1 debates)?
American businesses can: Hire people they want to hire Fire people they want to fire Pay people what they are worth
Well, no wonder that they've taken it too far and wonder why the public is against them - being corporation friendly is only going to bring the "Robber Baron" class back.
Fix the H1B/L1 loophole (add teeth by specifying that the job can actually be done by the millions of US citizens - no "5 years experience for a 3 year existing skill" requirements allowed). Labor mobility only works if the laws arent engineered against the worker, and if it takes account external costs to move.
Redirect subsidies from other places to education and turn all universities to merit-blind, full open admissions education (in other words, bring a form of Net Neutrality to higher education).
Since some states (like Ohio and Michigan) have gotten into an economic disaster, removing the high cost tiered system of higher education would be the only real way to pull them out. Moving out is not an option as the people that could move out have moved out.
The big question is, what is it with an economy that makes it good to punish the worker and it inherently evil to allow the majority to benefit?
Unfortunately, Carly "Only my job is god given" Fiorina's replacement came from NCR, a company infamous for it's health care screwup in the 1990s - after about 60-70+ years of doing business the right way(with ethics and honorable conduct not thrown out the window).
Note that anything like this, it's SOP for a Stanford educated person. They exclude people at first chance to manage situations like these to get a desirable result.
"Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."
Easy to get a captive audience that reflects only your opinion, and wont ask any hard questions. Then again, it's to be expected from these Stanfordites.
"We dont care. We dont have to. We're the phone company." -Lily Tomlin That seems to be quite true given the explanation on why he rejects Net Neutrality.
Just dont come in with a Logitech G15 or a server of your own making - then moddability goes out the window. They'd have to outright undo the bnetd decision before I ever come back. Until then, I'll happily slay farmers indiscriminately in any manner I see fit. No need to circumvent faction problems, just pure "you make the fun in the game" pvp.
After all, WoW only comes out on top after the top twogames are taken out of statistics.
If there's been a known bug in L2, it's been fixed. Here, the only issue is not being able to drop sellshops in town. Nothing better than having a farmer crew being taken out by a few mobs in town and dropping their ill-gotten treasure for westerners to grab.
Well, it'd not be complete without saying that they sued their competition into submission. Although they got something out of it, it really served to drive more people to a more tolerant game of third party servers.
Thank Ivy Exclusion Prestige for the low quality.
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
If you're the product of an American university education these days, I'm scared for the future of our country. Somehow that rings clear for a lot of our Ivory Tower administration (and those who have been given the administration's blessing), which has less than a handful of people that went to places with open admissions and more than their share of Ivy level incompetence. When you have a good deal of people from an exclusive institution or two, you're going to get a bunch of them put through. The results are what we have today in our government on both sides.
Roberts, the Yalito, "Shoe Store Assault by Proxy" Rice, Bolton(), Bush, and others(I wonder if his bunker is at Yale) all seem to not reflect the intention to have exclusion generate quality classes. The first two make Miers look clean by current decisions - she's probably one of the few non Ivies that made it as far as she did - and proved it during her nomination that if you're not from a highly exclusive university, you're not going to get SCOTUS even if you are more competent than the Ivy/Ivory Tower candidate.
If this is the beginning generation of a decline in Ivy quality, they might as well just open admissions and be on with it. It's not like they could dig themselves any deeper by doing it. Heck, the entirety of the Midwest that wanted to study law there would make it look clean at Yale, MIT (Ivory Tower but not Ivy) would actually generate high quality domestic talent, and Harvard wouldnt have as many offshorer business majors.
Now that we have 2 conservative Ivies in the Supreme Court, this wasnt a surprising decision. Guess Miers wouldnt have been a bad decision, given how The Yalito and Roberts (by association in going to an Ivy) have now put themselves firmly in the side of that was feared if an unanointed non-Ivy was put in.
The only thing lower than any lawyer(even SCO) is now officially these two in the Supreme Court. If the standards are low enough to admit these kind of people to supposed "high standard" universities, it seems that they might as well have admitted 30,000 domestic students in a need-blind, merit-blind, fully-open admission policy to these places.
Can we have back a Nixon, if only for the known dislike for those of the Ivy persuasion?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, "tuition-free university" is something of a political sacred cow in many countries.
Rightfully so, as it's not the problem but a decent part of a merit blind, fully open access solution.
Just allow open admissions, and you'll be better for it. Allowing education at all levels to be as easy to get as water from a tap seems to work better than thinking only some anointed few are allowed access.
BZZZT. Wrong Answer. Thanks for trying.
Somehow removing the barriers to education have helped that country do a bit better wrt dealing with the Problem of the East. So much for trying to justify a high tuition and exclusivity when it is flat wrong.
Somethings wrong with that kind of admissions policy, and it shows. Multiply that admit rate by 4 for every university and we might have something of value - there should be no valid reason to just build prestige classes. Once you get to that point, you'll start to see where having merit blind admissions generates more benefit than exclusion. One country has already done it with success as of now in the West, and they oddly are doing quite well for it in the economy - despite what some here may think.
Somehow it never stopped Ireland (admittedly a much smaller country) from just extending public funding up to college level. Ironically it even helps them to remove at least one barrier of scarcity.
Well, you shouldnt need the use of the service if you're dead. Of course if you're being frozen, there could be a problem upon being reanimated and discovering that you died, had a certificate sent to Google.
I guess you just use HERF on it, no need to be precise. Save the crowbar for the cops for when they come.
The next one will:
1) Not have the unsightly "Ivory Tower" philosophy that Google has inherited from Stanford - sorry, but Orkut "Circlejerk Bukakke" needs to lay off the Animal House.
2) Not go to countries such as China or India, but taking the greater challenge of developing in our own backyards. There's a bunch of people here that can do the work at the original rate and easily come up ahead in total cost savings versus the "rubber stamp CMM" countries. Slapping them in the face is only going to determine if your trial will be a mock one or a real one.
3) Not considering the Midwest as just "flyover country" due to lack of exclusive colleges and exclusive places. We're all not just country hicks. The ground's been good enough for farmland, manufacturing, missile silos, why not put your datacenter and other things in here as well? Or is it that you're just too busy with writing offshoring loophole law?
...When at the same time, they release the first laptop certified to be built in countries that do not have slave labor. ;)
This or even thison one of the following phones can do that kind of thing. SSH over EDGE, GPRS, or 802.11(9300i/9500) - even with the cameraless models. Full keyboard on those three and not terribly large, and looks like an older phone when folded. If you can live with the camera, go with the 9500 and a large media card, otherwise the 9300i is the best bet.
The only real thing missing from these is the SIP client that Nokia has in testing for these phones that they cant seem to release. After that, you can have all the calls you want without a conventional endpoint as well as a remote client. Other than that they might not want the Series 80 to compete with the E series, there really doesnt seem to be much of a reason to hold it back. Even then, that reason doesnt hold terribly well.
Well, they had the docs. They had the code. But dtrace and some nasty bug lopped it all off. It would have been better to lop off that specific breaking feature, and not a whole architecture that didnt have the release. If you can keep enough of sbus to run a U2 and the sbus hardware, the u1/ss5/ss20 should be a (relative) piece of cake (notwithstanding dtrace, the way to HCL out anything before a Ultra2).
I guess it depends which you value more; an immediate payback for the time you spent, or money in the bank and time saved.
Dont be so quick to consider just saving in the short term will do fine. If you want to be constantly bleeding cash for parts, fine. Just dont be disappointed by the low quality.
Start with a very highend setup(proven components that are built solidly) and keep the configuration relatively unchanged until you cannot go further with that setup. Only add components infrequently as needed(should be about 1-2 cycles/2-3 years after) and in the largest possible increments and/or highest quality as possible.
Repeat as necessary given that you have a system that will last a long while with parts that were made to last a long time, and that things just wont break 15s after the short warranty's up.
For gaming, that should keep you going for a good while.
Unfortunately it will take something a bit short of an act of $DEITY to do that in the US - Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Yale seem to be embarrassed to have to admit a class of US citizens that would tarnish their respective "Ivory Tower" image. That isnt even including the part where there would be a chance of there being a "well-informed population" to counter political manipulation.
Any idea of how it's funded over there, and if all universities over there are included?
(no, I'm not interested in moving over there, just would like to hear the details of how it's helping )
I submit that the reason startups happen most often in the USA is simply because US society approves of people getting rich. There's no embarrassment in being wealthy.
Well, when ethics is no problem here, you're going to get this kind of business activity.
In many other parts of the world the rich must fear "the people". As a result the "pre-rich" give up before they start for fear of making themselves a target.
Unfortunately a few bad apples (read: Industrial/Victorian robber barons, slave labor multinationals, corporate lobbyists, Modern day off[s|w]horers, and the Enron types) have ruined things enough to require robust regulation. The US is just getting to the point where there might not be shame in being rich- just that you will fear the majority out of respect.
I ask the question - why is it fine to freely punish (via such things as offshoring and pro-employer hiring practices) "the people" who make up for the majority, versus it being a cardinal sin to keep businesses honest(as evidenced in the immigration reform and H1B/L1 debates)?
American businesses can:
Hire people they want to hire
Fire people they want to fire
Pay people what they are worth
Well, no wonder that they've taken it too far and wonder why the public is against them - being corporation friendly is only going to bring the "Robber Baron" class back.
Fix the H1B/L1 loophole (add teeth by specifying that the job can actually be done by the millions of US citizens - no "5 years experience for a 3 year existing skill" requirements allowed). Labor mobility only works if the laws arent engineered against the worker, and if it takes account external costs to move.
Redirect subsidies from other places to education and turn all universities to merit-blind, full open admissions education (in other words, bring a form of Net Neutrality to higher education).
Since some states (like Ohio and Michigan) have gotten into an economic disaster, removing the high cost tiered system of higher education would be the only real way to pull them out. Moving out is not an option as the people that could move out have moved out.
The big question is, what is it with an economy that makes it good to punish the worker and it inherently evil to allow the majority to benefit?
Unfortunately, Carly "Only my job is god given" Fiorina's replacement came from NCR, a company infamous for it's health care screwup in the 1990s - after about 60-70+ years of doing business the right way(with ethics and honorable conduct not thrown out the window).
Note that anything like this, it's SOP for a Stanford educated person. They exclude people at first chance to manage situations like these to get a desirable result.
"Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."
Easy to get a captive audience that reflects only your opinion, and wont ask any hard questions. Then again, it's to be expected from these Stanfordites.
"We dont care. We dont have to. We're the phone company." -Lily Tomlin
That seems to be quite true given the explanation on why he rejects Net Neutrality.
Not to mention the openness of Stanford... ...oh, wait. They dont know a thing about openness if would save their lives, they just know to exclude.
Just dont come in with a Logitech G15 or a server of your own making - then moddability goes out the window. They'd have to outright undo the bnetd decision before I ever come back. Until then, I'll happily slay farmers indiscriminately in any manner I see fit. No need to circumvent faction problems, just pure "you make the fun in the game" pvp.
After all, WoW only comes out on top after the top two games are taken out of statistics.
If there's been a known bug in L2, it's been fixed. Here, the only issue is not being able to drop sellshops in town. Nothing better than having a farmer crew being taken out by a few mobs in town and dropping their ill-gotten treasure for westerners to grab.
Well, it'd not be complete without saying that they sued their competition into submission. Although they got something out of it, it really served to drive more people to a more tolerant game of third party servers.
If you're the product of an American university education these days, I'm scared for the future of our country.
Somehow that rings clear for a lot of our Ivory Tower administration (and those who have been given the administration's blessing), which has less than a handful of people that went to places with open admissions and more than their share of Ivy level incompetence. When you have a good deal of people from an exclusive institution or two, you're going to get a bunch of them put through. The results are what we have today in our government on both sides.
Roberts, the Yalito, "Shoe Store Assault by Proxy" Rice, Bolton(), Bush, and others(I wonder if his bunker is at Yale) all seem to not reflect the intention to have exclusion generate quality classes. The first two make Miers look clean by current decisions - she's probably one of the few non Ivies that made it as far as she did - and proved it during her nomination that if you're not from a highly exclusive university, you're not going to get SCOTUS even if you are more competent than the Ivy/Ivory Tower candidate.
If this is the beginning generation of a decline in Ivy quality, they might as well just open admissions and be on with it. It's not like they could dig themselves any deeper by doing it. Heck, the entirety of the Midwest that wanted to study law there would make it look clean at Yale, MIT (Ivory Tower but not Ivy) would actually generate high quality domestic talent, and Harvard wouldnt have as many offshorer business majors.
Now that we have 2 conservative Ivies in the Supreme Court, this wasnt a surprising decision. Guess Miers wouldnt have been a bad decision, given how The Yalito and Roberts (by association in going to an Ivy) have now put themselves firmly in the side of that was feared if an unanointed non-Ivy was put in.
The only thing lower than any lawyer(even SCO) is now officially these two in the Supreme Court. If the standards are low enough to admit these kind of people to supposed "high standard" universities, it seems that they might as well have admitted 30,000 domestic students in a need-blind, merit-blind, fully-open admission policy to these places.
Can we have back a Nixon, if only for the known dislike for those of the Ivy persuasion?
...Or an IBM keyboard. It can give pain and survive with ease.