The fact that you are arguing that "this planet is already massively over-populated" tells me that discussing this with you would result in two things:
You getting impassioned and irritated when I argue the definitions of the words "necessity" and "overpopulation"
and
Me getting frustrated when I try to explain why I don't believe your amazingly egalitarian and magnanimous but unrealistically Utopian ideas bear any particular resemblance to what it takes for a human society to exist.
I fully expect this comments section to be full of "but what about all the resources we need for..." fears about "overpopulation". Where there's a will, there's a way. The zero population growth people would have us believe that the numbers are very different from what they really are, but the world can produce a lot more food than we do, and with minimal changes, it could be greatly increased.
I agree that it's purely anecdotal. I'm simply saying that these stories are out there. Even now, when such a large percentage of the people have at least been through a college course or two if not years worth, these stories don't automatically ring false and often elicit comparison to an instructor the person hearing the tale has dealt with.
I believe it was an English course. I don't remember specifically which one. I don't know if the situation is as politically dominated in Canada as it is in the United States.
If I were in your position, I'd get an old air-cooled Volkswagen and restore it. Probably an old VW camper or bug. There's something appealing about getting to know a machine inside and out.
The fact that our government has reached the point where this is necessary is ironic in that it proves "we the people" are only in charge as much as the government says we are, undermining the very basis of our constitution. This is a band-aid on a gaping wound.
Academic freedom is something most professors are hardly in a position to speak of. In my own college courses, students were afforded very little opportunity to think freely if they wished to get grades that would sustain their scholarships and academics-based assistance. And this was at a right-wing private university, where I caused endless arguments in one of the few "academically free" courses I took for having libertarian views (much to the amusement of the professor, who successfully masked his own politics to encourage discussion, but in private, I found him to be a likely independent or (L|l)ibertarian rather than a Republican or Democrat). I've heard it gets even worse in such ways at the more common liberal-dominated universities, where one of my friends reported a class began with the professor announcing on the first day that if anyone was a Republican, they may as well leave right now and drop the class because they would be given a failing grade if they were discovered.
Contrast this with my online courses that I took, where I found that instead of sitting through a lecture where a professor stood on his soapbox for an hour, I could actually craft proper responses to queries and interact much more openly in ways that fostered an environment where people could learn from each other as well as just whatever the instructors' opinions expressed happened to be.
Most professors, when referring to "Academic Freedom", usually mean "freedom for professional academics". I'm not sure the ivory tower deserves the protection it has enjoyed for so long at the expense of students' ability to actually use their minds.
I'm not sure you understand (I apologize if I'm misreading, but your phrasing in a couple of places seems to imply you're not from the United States) that in the US, the entire principle upon which our bill of rights (the first 10 amendments of our constitution) was written included the necessity for the language to be so plain, simple, and so unequivocating that they could not be abused without even the most common of men being able to identify when those rights were being infringed.
Over the past 220 years, of course, our lawyers and government officials have done everything they could to twist the words and the language into things which the founders could never have meant in the language of their day, and if one simply takes the time to read their writings, would never have passed into law in the first place.
In this example, the fourth amendment was intended to ensure the right of the people not to have their property, persons, homes, recorded information (papers essentially being the medium of the day, as opposed to the literal meaning of paper itself), and so forth, against general government scrutiny as well as to prohibit general warrants (such as Writs of Assistance, which were heavily abused in the colonies and are essentially not substantially different from PRISM and other government tracking and general surveillance programs).
So rest assured, I am quite confident that my understanding and view of how the fourth amendment was intended by its authors to restrict the government is sufficient to apply it in this case, as well as that my understanding of the reasons for which it was authored as it was is properly sufficient. Regardless of how the present government may choose to interpret it, something that has been quite questionable in many rulings despite the plainness of the language. For one such example, you might examine Kelo v. City of New London, which was clearly decided in a way not consistent with the intent of its authors in any manner, or even with the language itself barring an egregious twist of the words and meanings.
Personally, I look at it from the view of intent. Thankfully, some of the framers wrote extensively on the subject, making the latter view of it as a clear and concise document the obvious choice for anyone who wishes to view it as intended.
I'm not sure Occam's Razor works how you think it does. Given the government's track record, especially in the past twelve years, Occam's Razor actually works against your position.
It's true, but at least they're talking about it. That's more than I'm seeing in most other countries.
That said, it may not be as simple as just changing a law. Odds are, Germany is party to numerous intellectual property treaties that would prohibit them from simply changing the law as an easy solution, since in these treaties, they'd still have to meet the terms of the treaty in patent law and in enforcement of foreign patents.
Ah, but my comment wasn't specifically about pay. My comment was remarking on how some interns are not getting what you described at all. I think throughout the comments section here, there are a lot of people who are comparing either apples and oranges or trying to compare one apple to itself. The reality seems to be that there is no one-size-fits-all description of all internships.
Seems that while other countries are stuck in their backwards application of patent law on technologies for which it was never intended, Germany is recognizing the significant repercussions of allowing such actions. The German Parliament has taken positive steps here to declare that it should not be allowed to be abused in such ways. Bravo, Germany! Bravo. Keep up the good work.
I can't comment on specifics, as I've never done an internship, but my impression is that the theory is to get the intern a little bit of exposure to the field they are trying to get into, with the byproduct of some internships leading to legitimate jobs or networking with those they interned with. However, if the internships are being used as an excuse to use these interns as nothing but grunt workers for tasks completely unrelated to their field, it seems the exercise is a waste on any but a networking level, and even then, they'd be cultivating contacts whom they will just resent anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an artificial barrier. I'm saying something is possible, not that the present political situation makes it simple.
The fact that you are arguing that "this planet is already massively over-populated" tells me that discussing this with you would result in two things:
You getting impassioned and irritated when I argue the definitions of the words "necessity" and "overpopulation"
and
Me getting frustrated when I try to explain why I don't believe your amazingly egalitarian and magnanimous but unrealistically Utopian ideas bear any particular resemblance to what it takes for a human society to exist.
You're saying something is presently costly, not that it's impossible or even that difficult.
I fully expect this comments section to be full of "but what about all the resources we need for..." fears about "overpopulation". Where there's a will, there's a way. The zero population growth people would have us believe that the numbers are very different from what they really are, but the world can produce a lot more food than we do, and with minimal changes, it could be greatly increased.
I agree that it's purely anecdotal. I'm simply saying that these stories are out there. Even now, when such a large percentage of the people have at least been through a college course or two if not years worth, these stories don't automatically ring false and often elicit comparison to an instructor the person hearing the tale has dealt with.
Thanks for your input, though, Professor.
I believe it was an English course. I don't remember specifically which one. I don't know if the situation is as politically dominated in Canada as it is in the United States.
If I were in your position, I'd get an old air-cooled Volkswagen and restore it. Probably an old VW camper or bug. There's something appealing about getting to know a machine inside and out.
The fact that our government has reached the point where this is necessary is ironic in that it proves "we the people" are only in charge as much as the government says we are, undermining the very basis of our constitution. This is a band-aid on a gaping wound.
Academic freedom is something most professors are hardly in a position to speak of. In my own college courses, students were afforded very little opportunity to think freely if they wished to get grades that would sustain their scholarships and academics-based assistance. And this was at a right-wing private university, where I caused endless arguments in one of the few "academically free" courses I took for having libertarian views (much to the amusement of the professor, who successfully masked his own politics to encourage discussion, but in private, I found him to be a likely independent or (L|l)ibertarian rather than a Republican or Democrat). I've heard it gets even worse in such ways at the more common liberal-dominated universities, where one of my friends reported a class began with the professor announcing on the first day that if anyone was a Republican, they may as well leave right now and drop the class because they would be given a failing grade if they were discovered.
Contrast this with my online courses that I took, where I found that instead of sitting through a lecture where a professor stood on his soapbox for an hour, I could actually craft proper responses to queries and interact much more openly in ways that fostered an environment where people could learn from each other as well as just whatever the instructors' opinions expressed happened to be.
Most professors, when referring to "Academic Freedom", usually mean "freedom for professional academics". I'm not sure the ivory tower deserves the protection it has enjoyed for so long at the expense of students' ability to actually use their minds.
Indeed, I'm quite aware of these things, but regardless of their de-facto usage, it doesn't make them right.
I'm not sure you understand (I apologize if I'm misreading, but your phrasing in a couple of places seems to imply you're not from the United States) that in the US, the entire principle upon which our bill of rights (the first 10 amendments of our constitution) was written included the necessity for the language to be so plain, simple, and so unequivocating that they could not be abused without even the most common of men being able to identify when those rights were being infringed.
Over the past 220 years, of course, our lawyers and government officials have done everything they could to twist the words and the language into things which the founders could never have meant in the language of their day, and if one simply takes the time to read their writings, would never have passed into law in the first place.
In this example, the fourth amendment was intended to ensure the right of the people not to have their property, persons, homes, recorded information (papers essentially being the medium of the day, as opposed to the literal meaning of paper itself), and so forth, against general government scrutiny as well as to prohibit general warrants (such as Writs of Assistance, which were heavily abused in the colonies and are essentially not substantially different from PRISM and other government tracking and general surveillance programs).
So rest assured, I am quite confident that my understanding and view of how the fourth amendment was intended by its authors to restrict the government is sufficient to apply it in this case, as well as that my understanding of the reasons for which it was authored as it was is properly sufficient. Regardless of how the present government may choose to interpret it, something that has been quite questionable in many rulings despite the plainness of the language. For one such example, you might examine Kelo v. City of New London, which was clearly decided in a way not consistent with the intent of its authors in any manner, or even with the language itself barring an egregious twist of the words and meanings.
I'm not sure you realize that your post is a complete non-response to my post.
Personally, I look at it from the view of intent. Thankfully, some of the framers wrote extensively on the subject, making the latter view of it as a clear and concise document the obvious choice for anyone who wishes to view it as intended.
I'm not sure Occam's Razor works how you think it does. Given the government's track record, especially in the past twelve years, Occam's Razor actually works against your position.
If it's genuinely gotten so bad that it takes an expert to understand the plain words of the constitution, we're screwed anyway.
Given the embarrassment he's caused for the US government, he will suffer consequences, there's no doubt about that.
There, I fixed it for you. I will never begrudge a man like Snowden who exposes constitutional violations by the government.
It's true, but at least they're talking about it. That's more than I'm seeing in most other countries.
That said, it may not be as simple as just changing a law. Odds are, Germany is party to numerous intellectual property treaties that would prohibit them from simply changing the law as an easy solution, since in these treaties, they'd still have to meet the terms of the treaty in patent law and in enforcement of foreign patents.
Indeed it is.
Ah, but my comment wasn't specifically about pay. My comment was remarking on how some interns are not getting what you described at all. I think throughout the comments section here, there are a lot of people who are comparing either apples and oranges or trying to compare one apple to itself. The reality seems to be that there is no one-size-fits-all description of all internships.
Seems that while other countries are stuck in their backwards application of patent law on technologies for which it was never intended, Germany is recognizing the significant repercussions of allowing such actions. The German Parliament has taken positive steps here to declare that it should not be allowed to be abused in such ways. Bravo, Germany! Bravo. Keep up the good work.
I can't comment on specifics, as I've never done an internship, but my impression is that the theory is to get the intern a little bit of exposure to the field they are trying to get into, with the byproduct of some internships leading to legitimate jobs or networking with those they interned with. However, if the internships are being used as an excuse to use these interns as nothing but grunt workers for tasks completely unrelated to their field, it seems the exercise is a waste on any but a networking level, and even then, they'd be cultivating contacts whom they will just resent anyway.
It's not the judge's job to defend the internship concept.
I'm pretty sure using the internet at all pretty much qualifies as reporting oneself to the NSA at this point.
I'm more concerned with the precedent this could set than with specifically seeing the government block TPB.
I don't want railway stations to have airport-level security.