" The legal system has obvious monopolistic power, since it's government." Laws are proposed and voted upon by democratically-elected representatives. It's hard to call that a monopoly.
"And there's no moral justification whatsoever why lawyers and their schools cost so much money. A lawyer charging $200/hr for $50/hr work is as equally artificial as when I charged $35/hr for $15/hr IT work. " and your comparison is artificial. A law degree is a minimum of 3 yrs, usually (depending on state bar requirements) a four year degree. In contrast, I have no degree, IT-related or otherwise, or certifications, and can charge $50 through my consultation service for IT work. My boss (who runs the service and has no CS-related degree or certifications) charges $80-125 an hour for my time, and his, for that matter. Plumbing requirements a short apprenticeship and no degree, and thus doesnt deserve the same compensation. Hell, even electricians can make upwards of $80/hr, and they stil require no degree, just permits and certifications.
Where do you live, out of curiosity? Is the cost of living lower there?
Because law school is expensive and a lot of work, and legal counsel ina protracted case requires lots of booked hours. Most people don't want to get a law degree and end up working at $10/hr.
That's possible... but given the topics he is exploring I think he probably did include several very graphic sex scenes. It would be hard to compare the MPAA's handling of similar material in two different films unless he actually showed (at least parts) of the scenes in question to the audience.
I can't explain the wealth disparity, but I think Google users tend to be more computer savvy because google is more of a purist search engine. MSN, yahoo, etc are more "portal" type services with lots of obnoxious ads, silly tabloid-style surveys and fluff articles, and generally a lot of clutter for the bewildered computer noob to ooh and ahh at.
Those with more net savvy tend to head for the more simple, direct route to what they want to find, with the least amount of distractions and timewasters along the way.
That survey is 3 and a half years old and identifies the reason that mac users (at that time) were more net savvy as due to the fact that half of them had been online for at least five years. Three+ years is plenty of time for that factor to swing in a different direction.
I suppose you have some citations for this claim? I'd buy that Mac users are on the average wealthier (Macs are more expensive) but as someone who has supported both PC and Mac users in a wide variety of circumstances, I don't see much difference between the two in regard to "net savvy".
if it is scientifically testable, then sure, I'd accept the possibility, and if the tests proved that this was taking place, I'd adopt the belief. I'm not sure how this relates to "Vitalism", which has nothing to do with Mirror Neurons and is untestable.
i'm sure some BYU professors do... and I'm sure some don't. As I'm sure this professor has had many discourses with students of other faiths at Kansas, and got blasted for making some remarks in an address to an atheist organization.
thanks, i read descartes, i realize that the experience of the physical world is not provable, and that there may be "forces" or "energy" may exist, but there is a vital difference- we can measure and evaluate the physical world, which makes it closer to provability, as opposed to vitalism, which is about as provable as invisible pink spirit unicorns.
most evolutionists already admit this. science isn't about knowing everything, it's about observations and hypotheses. The problem is that the ID side wants to pretend that the empirical observations (fossil record, ice cores, etc) are either flawed, false, or the work of satan, because they have preconceived beliefs about what happened and want to make the world fit those beliefs, whereas evolutionists are just trying to draw the most logical conclusion from the available data. And that conclusion points to a logical environmentally-influenced evolutionary process, not some invisible deity making arbitrary choices about the way things will be.
No, but he was addressing an atheist organization when he made the comments. It's not like he stood up in class or during a staff meeting and began ranting about christians. The fact that it is a secular school, to me, means that the professors should be allowed to hold their own opinions. It is the school and its treatment of students and education that should remain neutral, not the opinions of the staff.
...would people be equally outraged if the Religious Studies Chair at a religious school, let's say BYU, were to badmouth atheism? My guess is that it probably happens all the time.
Tried this out today. The directions weren't too bad, although it didn't seem to be including the MAX trains in its calculations, at least not logically.
IMPOSSIBLE! Just as Heracles truly existed and performed all his feats of strength, so did archimedes do everything as claimed in the writings, word for word. It's impossible that he may have accomplished his victory by other means and then allowed the story to be embellished.
Yeah? I read that there was this guy Zeus that could hurl lightning bolts. I mean, sure, we can't do it now, and there is abso0lutely no scientific precedent for how this was achieved, but I'm sure because there is this story about it that it must be true so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
"Really, really, really smart people 2000 years ago were probibally really, really smarter than most people now."
HAHAHAHAH! What scientific evidence do you have for this? This doesn't even MAKE SENSE. Why would smart people have been smarter then? Oh, and the pyramids could be built today if we were willing to spend decades or centuries working people to death to create them. Nothing mystical there. Hell, with our modern machines (created by us stupid modern people) we can create buildings much, much larger than the pyramids those ancients geniuses created.
MIT? Maybe not. What about the dozens (hundreds?) of other technical schools around the world? Bottomline: if it was possible, someone would have reproduced it by now.
Slashdot Mirror
" The legal system has obvious monopolistic power, since it's government."
Laws are proposed and voted upon by democratically-elected representatives. It's hard to call that a monopoly.
"And there's no moral justification whatsoever why lawyers and their schools cost so much money. A lawyer charging $200/hr for $50/hr work is as equally artificial as when I charged $35/hr for $15/hr IT work. "
and your comparison is artificial. A law degree is a minimum of 3 yrs, usually (depending on state bar requirements) a four year degree. In contrast, I have no degree, IT-related or otherwise, or certifications, and can charge $50 through my consultation service for IT work. My boss (who runs the service and has no CS-related degree or certifications) charges $80-125 an hour for my time, and his, for that matter.
Plumbing requirements a short apprenticeship and no degree, and thus doesnt deserve the same compensation. Hell, even electricians can make upwards of $80/hr, and they stil require no degree, just permits and certifications.
Where do you live, out of curiosity? Is the cost of living lower there?
Monopolistic power? The expense of law school is artificial? You are gravely in need of a clue, friend.
Because law school is expensive and a lot of work, and legal counsel ina protracted case requires lots of booked hours. Most people don't want to get a law degree and end up working at $10/hr.
That's possible... but given the topics he is exploring I think he probably did include several very graphic sex scenes. It would be hard to compare the MPAA's handling of similar material in two different films unless he actually showed (at least parts) of the scenes in question to the audience.
ha!
I can't explain the wealth disparity, but I think Google users tend to be more computer savvy because google is more of a purist search engine. MSN, yahoo, etc are more "portal" type services with lots of obnoxious ads, silly tabloid-style surveys and fluff articles, and generally a lot of clutter for the bewildered computer noob to ooh and ahh at.
Those with more net savvy tend to head for the more simple, direct route to what they want to find, with the least amount of distractions and timewasters along the way.
maybe?
That survey is 3 and a half years old and identifies the reason that mac users (at that time) were more net savvy as due to the fact that half of them had been online for at least five years. Three+ years is plenty of time for that factor to swing in a different direction.
I suppose you have some citations for this claim? I'd buy that Mac users are on the average wealthier (Macs are more expensive) but as someone who has supported both PC and Mac users in a wide variety of circumstances, I don't see much difference between the two in regard to "net savvy".
if it is scientifically testable, then sure, I'd accept the possibility, and if the tests proved that this was taking place, I'd adopt the belief.
I'm not sure how this relates to "Vitalism", which has nothing to do with Mirror Neurons and is untestable.
Have you actually used Windows before?
i'm sure some BYU professors do... and I'm sure some don't. As I'm sure this professor has had many discourses with students of other faiths at Kansas, and got blasted for making some remarks in an address to an atheist organization.
thanks, i read descartes, i realize that the experience of the physical world is not provable, and that there may be "forces" or "energy" may exist, but there is a vital difference- we can measure and evaluate the physical world, which makes it closer to provability, as opposed to vitalism, which is about as provable as invisible pink spirit unicorns.
most evolutionists already admit this. science isn't about knowing everything, it's about observations and hypotheses. The problem is that the ID side wants to pretend that the empirical observations (fossil record, ice cores, etc) are either flawed, false, or the work of satan, because they have preconceived beliefs about what happened and want to make the world fit those beliefs, whereas evolutionists are just trying to draw the most logical conclusion from the available data.
And that conclusion points to a logical environmentally-influenced evolutionary process, not some invisible deity making arbitrary choices about the way things will be.
The great thing about vitalism is that its completely unprovable! It's just a "feeling". How convenient!
he was not engaging in discourse with christians when he made the comments, he was addressing an atheist organization.
No, but he was addressing an atheist organization when he made the comments. It's not like he stood up in class or during a staff meeting and began ranting about christians.
The fact that it is a secular school, to me, means that the professors should be allowed to hold their own opinions. It is the school and its treatment of students and education that should remain neutral, not the opinions of the staff.
...would people be equally outraged if the Religious Studies Chair at a religious school, let's say BYU, were to badmouth atheism? My guess is that it probably happens all the time.
It is decidedly more wrong to beat a man than to verbally insult a religion.
Tried this out today. The directions weren't too bad, although it didn't seem to be including the MAX trains in its calculations, at least not logically.
ya, anyone who would make a joke at the expense of those wonderful nambla fellows must be a dirty rotten scoundrel.
Hey look, an anonymous shitbrick with a not-so-witty retort, devoid of any actual substance, of course.
3 slashdot
IMPOSSIBLE! Just as Heracles truly existed and performed all his feats of strength, so did archimedes do everything as claimed in the writings, word for word. It's impossible that he may have accomplished his victory by other means and then allowed the story to be embellished.
Yeah? I read that there was this guy Zeus that could hurl lightning bolts. I mean, sure, we can't do it now, and there is abso0lutely no scientific precedent for how this was achieved, but I'm sure because there is this story about it that it must be true so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
"Really, really, really smart people 2000 years ago were probibally really, really smarter than most people now."
HAHAHAHAH! What scientific evidence do you have for this? This doesn't even MAKE SENSE. Why would smart people have been smarter then?
Oh, and the pyramids could be built today if we were willing to spend decades or centuries working people to death to create them. Nothing mystical there. Hell, with our modern machines (created by us stupid modern people) we can create buildings much, much larger than the pyramids those ancients geniuses created.
MIT? Maybe not. What about the dozens (hundreds?) of other technical schools around the world? Bottomline: if it was possible, someone would have reproduced it by now.