Number 2 is just plain silly. In Senior Design, for example, students are routinely given problems from industry, for the benefit of the company funding it. Why shouldn't open source be viable projects? The only issue is if the professor is actively involved in one - you can then argue conflict of interest.
You don't like Wikipedia much, yet you don't want these students to "pollute" it? I simply do not get your thesis.
Unless they merely write total nonsense, their flawed contributions will be corrected, and Wikipedia will gain. The students also gain. Where lies the problem?
The Do Not Call list was to prevent unsolicited calls.
This, however, is saying, "Look, I want to go to your Web site and have you not track me." To which I think the valid response should be, "Well then, don't come to my Web site."
The user is entirely in control. He initiates the actions, not the Web site. It's not as if he's running a program and the Web site suddenly shows up. And if it does, that's spyware/malware, not cookie tracking.
I second the CookieSafe, Adblock and NoScript extensions. Once a user knows how to use them, life becomes good. Yes, it has been argued that your average user can't handle some of them, or that they're quite inconvenient for some. But if you go shopping at a store, others can see what you buy, unless you disguise yourself or wear a hood, which is also inconvenient. You have to decide how much you value privacy. It rarely comes for free.
Likely very few of the research projects they're funding are of use only for questionable purposes.
If I were doing legitimate research, I would have no qualms about taking research funding from the NSA - as long as I can freely publish and discuss the results of my research.
And if I were doing research that only a few folks like the NSA could put to use, with little positive uses for my work, then it is irrelevant whether the NSA is funding it or not. If the Salvation Army funded it, then the NSA can misuse it.
Really - the only case where it would be worrisome is if some of the work was done directly for them, and not published for all to see. Other than that, it's all fine.
And frankly, you can try to act as though muslims don't engage in religiously motivated violence, but you'd be pretty dumb for trying. Calling that claim unsupported is just about the height of ignorance. I denied no such thing. The discussion is about science. While they are responsible for a lot of violence, I'm not aware of any instances where science had anything to do with it. No one gets burned for claiming evolution, AFAIK. Or that the Earth is round. Or that the Big Bang occurred. Can you find me instances of people being burned in those countries because of a scientific claim?
Yes, I know many who do (actually, almost all Muslims do). Yet that didn't stop them from solving Newton's equations, or Einstein's, or building bridges using mechanics. Or proving theorems. The fact that they believe it has little to do with scientific abilities.
Because when people make silly and unsupported claims about Muslims burning people in the streets for making scientific statements - I don't know - it inspires my sarcasm.
Perhaps you should have read the grandparent's post. He's not disputing your points. The grandparent said that Arabs had great scientific achievements prior to Islam. Yes, that is total crap. They had it after Islam came about.
And maybe you don't know much about Pervez Hoodbhoy, but he's been a critic for many years now, and his heart is still ticking, and I doubt he's hired any bodyguards.
I'll inform you of a little known secret about the news. When someone doesn't get a death threat, or is not murdered, the media is strangely silent.
Perhaps you should read his rationale behind the statement.
Simply put: Countries with dictators still at times do better than the countries mentioned. It's not that big a factor unless they actually shut down the universities. Few dictators actually prevent papers from being published - it's not their concern. Heck, just yesterday I was reading a research paper in my field that came from a Cuban university.
Some of these countries, BTW, have democracies. Their scientific output still sucks.
While the muslims do the same but actually set you on fire. In the street. Right now. Oh - right. So that's what all the oil's for.
Given that evolution is taught in most of those countries, and as per your comment, there are mass burnings in the street every year, it's hard to understand why some of those countries still have such a large rate of population increase.
Yes, but if you actually read the article, the author dispels the "lack of resources" argument. To address your specific point, the average person in the oil rich countries is well enough off to afford a good education. Yet those countries' output pales in comparison to much poorer places around the world.
Frankly, I think the author is tackling too much at once. Life in Malaysia is very different from that in Pakistan, which is very different from that in Iran, which is very different from that in Saudi Arabia, which is very different from that in Turkey. It'll be hard to find unifying reasons that apply well to all those countries. Each country has different reasons for their lack of scientific output.
...was once the height of scientific enlightenment. Then along came Islam, and since then very little has progressed (without outside influence). Quite the contrary. The Muslim Scientific Enlightenment began and declined after Islam came about. (I avoided saying Arab as many of the well known scientists, while living in the Middle East, were not Arab).
However, my understanding was that most of those debts can be deferred: Interest free - if you go to grad school. I certainly haven't met anyone in grad school who's paying back loans.
Depending on your major, you shouldn't foot the bill. In engineering, it is rare to find someone paying for his advanced degree. They usually have a teaching or research assistantship. At most, the ill informed come and pay for the first semester themselves, and then get some sort of funding after that.
Same goes for science (in fact, often science departments don't admit if they don't have funding).
In humanities/social science, things are more competitive. Harder to get funding there, but a lot of people still find away.
When I was graduating with my BS, most of my fellow grads used the "can't afford grad school because I've got enough debts already" excuse. Pity they never bothered asking the grad students in their departments how they were being funded...
When I was applying to grad school, my plan was that if I can obtain funding prior to starting, I'd go. Otherwise, I'd get a job. Paying for grad school was a no-no, as it should be.
I went to a 3rd tier school for my undergrad, and a top school (rank jumps between 3rd and 4th in my field). In both, the rule was the same: Put the effort into it, care more than just for grades, and something will become of you.
Corollary: Going to a top ranked school will guarantee thee nothing. Corollary 2: Going to a crappy school is not too great a disadvantage.
Yes, so one side are nasty sexists. That means that the other side has to be sexist as well? When I see that, I'll gladly point fingers at both and call them both on it. It's incredibly poor justification.
Especially when the people being victimized are not equivalent? It's not as if a woman in the fashion industry decided to become an engineer.
With regards to the article, it's a poor one (or rather, Berners-Lee puts it poorly). He never explains what aspect of geekiness discriminates against women. Yes, there is bias in hiring - but what does that have to do with geekiness? (And trust me, when people hire on the basis of academic publications, being geeky is not a sought after quality).
Nope. I meant market price. If I buy it brand new from an online retailer (as opposed to used from someone), it's pretty much the same price as on Amazon, etc. I always use book search engines, and it has literally been years (yes, I've been in school for a long time) since I found an online retailer selling it for significantly cheaper - unless it was an international edition.
The bookstores at both universities I went to didn't provide bargain prices, but they were more or less the same as what online retailers sold them at.
It may be worthwhile to add that both of them were owned and operated by the university - not by private entities. Both were public schools. If any of you in the US is going to a public school and the official bookstore is selling at more than 10% what you'd "normally" get online, you really, really, ought to protest.
Agreed. I, for one, like the current setup where each image is a window in itself. I do have minor complaints about Gimp's usability (no easy way to select a brush of arbitrary size??), but I'm quite attached to the main interface.
Slashdot Mirror
Number 2 is just plain silly. In Senior Design, for example, students are routinely given problems from industry, for the benefit of the company funding it. Why shouldn't open source be viable projects? The only issue is if the professor is actively involved in one - you can then argue conflict of interest.
You don't like Wikipedia much, yet you don't want these students to "pollute" it? I simply do not get your thesis.
Unless they merely write total nonsense, their flawed contributions will be corrected, and Wikipedia will gain. The students also gain. Where lies the problem?
Sounds like you just wanted to vent...
The Do Not Call list was to prevent unsolicited calls.
This, however, is saying, "Look, I want to go to your Web site and have you not track me." To which I think the valid response should be, "Well then, don't come to my Web site."
The user is entirely in control. He initiates the actions, not the Web site. It's not as if he's running a program and the Web site suddenly shows up. And if it does, that's spyware/malware, not cookie tracking.
I second the CookieSafe, Adblock and NoScript extensions. Once a user knows how to use them, life becomes good. Yes, it has been argued that your average user can't handle some of them, or that they're quite inconvenient for some. But if you go shopping at a store, others can see what you buy, unless you disguise yourself or wear a hood, which is also inconvenient. You have to decide how much you value privacy. It rarely comes for free.
Likely very few of the research projects they're funding are of use only for questionable purposes.
If I were doing legitimate research, I would have no qualms about taking research funding from the NSA - as long as I can freely publish and discuss the results of my research.
And if I were doing research that only a few folks like the NSA could put to use, with little positive uses for my work, then it is irrelevant whether the NSA is funding it or not. If the Salvation Army funded it, then the NSA can misuse it.
Really - the only case where it would be worrisome is if some of the work was done directly for them, and not published for all to see. Other than that, it's all fine.
Yes, I know many who do (actually, almost all Muslims do). Yet that didn't stop them from solving Newton's equations, or Einstein's, or building bridges using mechanics. Or proving theorems. The fact that they believe it has little to do with scientific abilities.
Yes, I was being sarcastic.
Because when people make silly and unsupported claims about Muslims burning people in the streets for making scientific statements - I don't know - it inspires my sarcasm.
Perhaps you should have read the grandparent's post. He's not disputing your points. The grandparent said that Arabs had great scientific achievements prior to Islam. Yes, that is total crap. They had it after Islam came about.
And maybe you don't know much about Pervez Hoodbhoy, but he's been a critic for many years now, and his heart is still ticking, and I doubt he's hired any bodyguards.
I'll inform you of a little known secret about the news. When someone doesn't get a death threat, or is not murdered, the media is strangely silent.
Yet another person who apparently has not met a Muslim, let alone live in the "Islamic" world.
Perhaps you should read his rationale behind the statement.
Simply put: Countries with dictators still at times do better than the countries mentioned. It's not that big a factor unless they actually shut down the universities. Few dictators actually prevent papers from being published - it's not their concern. Heck, just yesterday I was reading a research paper in my field that came from a Cuban university.
Some of these countries, BTW, have democracies. Their scientific output still sucks.
Given that evolution is taught in most of those countries, and as per your comment, there are mass burnings in the street every year, it's hard to understand why some of those countries still have such a large rate of population increase.
And Charlemagne lived when? And the article is talking about when? (Hint: 20th and 21st what?).
Yes, but if you actually read the article, the author dispels the "lack of resources" argument. To address your specific point, the average person in the oil rich countries is well enough off to afford a good education. Yet those countries' output pales in comparison to much poorer places around the world.
Frankly, I think the author is tackling too much at once. Life in Malaysia is very different from that in Pakistan, which is very different from that in Iran, which is very different from that in Saudi Arabia, which is very different from that in Turkey. It'll be hard to find unifying reasons that apply well to all those countries. Each country has different reasons for their lack of scientific output.
...was once the height of scientific enlightenment. Then along came Islam, and since then very little has progressed (without outside influence). Quite the contrary. The Muslim Scientific Enlightenment began and declined after Islam came about. (I avoided saying Arab as many of the well known scientists, while living in the Middle East, were not Arab).Nice try, though.
I didn't have debts, so I can't comment.
However, my understanding was that most of those debts can be deferred: Interest free - if you go to grad school. I certainly haven't met anyone in grad school who's paying back loans.
I see this attitude often, and it baffles me.
Depending on your major, you shouldn't foot the bill. In engineering, it is rare to find someone paying for his advanced degree. They usually have a teaching or research assistantship. At most, the ill informed come and pay for the first semester themselves, and then get some sort of funding after that.
Same goes for science (in fact, often science departments don't admit if they don't have funding).
In humanities/social science, things are more competitive. Harder to get funding there, but a lot of people still find away.
When I was graduating with my BS, most of my fellow grads used the "can't afford grad school because I've got enough debts already" excuse. Pity they never bothered asking the grad students in their departments how they were being funded...
When I was applying to grad school, my plan was that if I can obtain funding prior to starting, I'd go. Otherwise, I'd get a job. Paying for grad school was a no-no, as it should be.
I vote this the best post in this thread.
I went to a 3rd tier school for my undergrad, and a top school (rank jumps between 3rd and 4th in my field). In both, the rule was the same: Put the effort into it, care more than just for grades, and something will become of you.
Corollary: Going to a top ranked school will guarantee thee nothing.
Corollary 2: Going to a crappy school is not too great a disadvantage.
Obvious flamebait.
Yes, so one side are nasty sexists. That means that the other side has to be sexist as well? When I see that, I'll gladly point fingers at both and call them both on it. It's incredibly poor justification.
Especially when the people being victimized are not equivalent? It's not as if a woman in the fashion industry decided to become an engineer.
With regards to the article, it's a poor one (or rather, Berners-Lee puts it poorly). He never explains what aspect of geekiness discriminates against women. Yes, there is bias in hiring - but what does that have to do with geekiness? (And trust me, when people hire on the basis of academic publications, being geeky is not a sought after quality).
Nope. I meant market price. If I buy it brand new from an online retailer (as opposed to used from someone), it's pretty much the same price as on Amazon, etc. I always use book search engines, and it has literally been years (yes, I've been in school for a long time) since I found an online retailer selling it for significantly cheaper - unless it was an international edition.
The bookstores at both universities I went to didn't provide bargain prices, but they were more or less the same as what online retailers sold them at.
It may be worthwhile to add that both of them were owned and operated by the university - not by private entities. Both were public schools. If any of you in the US is going to a public school and the official bookstore is selling at more than 10% what you'd "normally" get online, you really, really, ought to protest.
In both universities I attended, textbooks were sold at market prices.
It's called ImageMagick
Agreed. I, for one, like the current setup where each image is a window in itself. I do have minor complaints about Gimp's usability (no easy way to select a brush of arbitrary size??), but I'm quite attached to the main interface.
Anyone know the story behind the ad? 5 minutes is a bit too long to be shown on TV as a commercial. Where exactly was this shown?