Until we reduce the cost of living in this country companies will continue to outsource. It's all about money. I can't possibly earn less than 4k a month due to bills, rent, etc. Less than that and I am in serious doo doo (I live in California where prices do nothing but sky rocket every year).
Maybe it's me being paranoid but how in the world are jobs leaving this country they way they are and yet the cost of living goes up every single year? Housing prices are seemingly out of reach to everyone yet they keep selling. A recent report on the news here in CA was that fewer than 9% of the CA population can afford to buy a house in CA.
Until we can make it affordable to live here we'll never be able to hold on to the jobs.
Sounds like we have very similar work styles. I usually have a scenic background from interfacelift.com or some other place. I have a really big 23 inch flat screen and it looks nice in the apartment with a "pretty" background. My gf appreciates it a lot more than an ugly solid or something.
Not very long. After years of working with computers (over 20), I've found keeping it simple is best. I change the background, arrange icons how I like and that's about it these days, whether it's windows or OSX or Ubuntu. If the OS can't accommodate this simple style I don't use it.
They are about learning to research, to think, to meet deadlines and about preparing something professional for a critical reviewer. Some subjects require much less of this than others, but to say they aren't valuable or needed at all is ridiculous. I write papers every week (English major) and I couldn't imagine how my subject would possibly work without papers.
Just because some people don't like them doesn't mean they don't have a place and I'm very suspect of anyone who claims cheating is so rampant. I've yet to see anyone cheat and I know of no one who has cheated or been caught.
You're kicking a dead horse. It's not a question of legality, it's a civil case. If you think civil court has anything to do with law and order you're more ignorant than I previously assumed. It's a case brought by users, not the government. My point still stands. You can stop with the long winded 15 one line paragraphs now. You aren't convincing anyone but yourself.
Yep. It's like that old saying sales people have, "You can do right by the customer a 100 times but do them wrong once and that's what they'll remember."
It's you that's missing the point. There doesn't need to be a direct comparison of any kind. It's customer perspective that matters and customers feel ripped off. That simple fact invalidates all your rationalization on the matter.
That's what happens when you market stripped down versions and feature full versions at the same time. It's like being promised a BMW and getting a Honda instead. Most average users don't understand all these differences and the sales person happily told them "Vista will run on it" to make a sale.
Microsoft may or may not win this one but regardless, the damage is done as far as end users are concerned.
Sponsoring is all about pvp, which is terrible in WoW. Warhammer's pvp will blow the doors off of WoWs. I was a hardcore WoW player for over 2 years and recently gave it up because it's gotten so stagnant and repetitive. Seems silly to me to start a sponsorship two years into the games lifespan when it's population is dropping like flies and its pvp system is a joke.
As for my comments about the population dropping like flies I'll just say this. They claim 8.5 million subscribers but don't tell you how many are the hourly China accounts (they inflate that number a great deal). They also forget to tell everyone they only sold 3.5 million copies of the expansion. I can also tell you from person experience that a large number of people who've bought the expansion have quit. Blizzard has dozens and dozens of dead servers right now, huge population imbalances and broken pvp. Any company sponsoring a team under these circumstances is throwing away money.
Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism call for salvation of any kind. They both claim God picks and chooses at random who will be saved through his mercy and with no tangible reason. Calvin stated we had no choice in our salvation and no free will of any kind. We were merely puppets on a string doing as we were intended. Arminianism states the same thing with a caveat saying we can choose only not to obey God but even then, God being all knowing and all seeing planned ahead of time for our disobediences.
I would suggest looking into them before commenting further as you don't seem to understand the basics of either. I don't mean to be rude but if you don't understand even this (which happens to be the building block and foundation of both ideologies) then you will never be able to connect the dots on what I'm getting at.
I tend to believe the idea of single cell organisms evolving into us personally. It really just jives with my understanding of human evolution and how we, to this day, have vestigial organs which no longer function. Just looking at our skeleton you can see how it's changed over the last 500,000 years. Remember mutation isn't the only thing causing dramatic changes. Just because a mutation occurs doesn't mean it'll become dominant. We may have had a mutation 250,000 years ago that allowed us to breathe fire but if environment didn't encourge it as a beneficial trait, it would be selected out. Mutation happens all the time and there are significant environmental causes for them to be beneficial, for instance an ice age or warming period. Some mutations rely heavily on others, for example mankind may never have created civilization if wheat hadn't mutated on it's own to produce more seeds, allowing humans to plant it and grow crops and build encampments and tribes around their crops rather than having to go out and forage for food.
4 billion years is a very long time. Mankind as we know it has been around for barely a minute on the clock. I think there has been plenty of time, through trial and error, mutation, environmental changes and other factors, for single cell organisms to evolve into what we see today. That however is opinion and likely will never be provable save for the invention of time travel.
I would argue cause. It's the cycle of "hand me down" belief systems. This country, though it may not seem like it to some, still clings heavily to it's puritan heritage. It's very difficult in this country to break tradition.
You are correct. I was merely using it as a type of background into the mentality of the people debating this topic. Calvinism is interesting in that way as it's more than just a philosophy, it's a complete state of mind and it's impact on the world was larger than anyone today can truly understand. That impact continues today and it's that state of mind we're trying to convince. It's a very difficult prospect and not surprising that people are still such hardliners.
It's because the creationists are actively lobbying to remove evolution from public education and have managed to do exactly that on several occasions.
I see your point but disagree. People's beliefs are actually arbitrary most of the time, based on parentage and schooling. There is no singular "belief" in Christianity, there are Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and so on. All very different and requiring a whole different set of arbitrary characteristics.
Understanding science is similar, there are different categories, subcategories, fields of study and so on. It's not that people refuse to accept them, they may very well do exactly that when exposed to them. The problem is they are rarely exposed, often by choice. Why would the average joe research physics? It probably has nothing to do with his day to day life and his current religious beliefs probably work just fine.
I could go on but I think that's the gist of it. Until you break the cycle of "hand me down" belief systems, this will be the end result.
There are actually two versions of Genesis, the old Hebrew one where God is not a single being but Ilohim (which is plural and I may have spelled it wrong). Then there is the Christian version which has God as singular and omnipotent, all knowing and all seeing. The problem comes from Calvinism and it's strong (to this very day) influence on Christianity. If Genesis isn't literal to these people the foundation of Christianity falls apart. Evolution directly contradicts the Bible. You can not logically combine the two and have the same religion. Hell the Bible contradicts itself enough as it is, bu when you add evolution, all the theology goes right out the window.
Check out Calvinism and Arminianism on Wikipedia sometime. Use it as background for reading Miltons paradise lost and you'll begin to understand the history of the debate that still rages on today.
Most Americans (people over the age of 35ish) were never taught evolution in school and those who were have been taught poorly. I didn't realize the piss poor job my teachers did in junior high and high school until I took an anthropology class in college. People still like to quip that we evolved from monkeys but don't realize we evolved seperate from monkeys and share a common ancestor.
The ignorance to evolution is amazing in this country. It's no surprise at all people haven't embraced it here like they have overseas in Europe.
Google is viewed by most politicians (mind you most politicians couldn't tell you what html is) as being the defacto standard of the internet in terms of searching, maps etc. So when something is falsified, accidentally or on purpose, they view it as their duty as protectors of the American public to step in. It's really all BS. Truth is they don't understand it so they fear it and then begin legislating it. I can't explain it any simpler. I've worked with a lot of these types in the past and if there is anything they have in common it's the fear of technology.
I think OpenOffice can do the plugin thing better than MS can. Just look how multi platform plugins work for Firefox. The OO team can make cross platform plugins that work pretty seamlessly if they tried. MS will be locked into doing it on Windows only. I could be wrong of course but I don't see how MS can do plugins better than the OO people, especially consider OO uses open API's and formats. I would find OO the much more appealing option if I were a developer.
For the price of a full version of Windows Vista I can almost buy an entire Mac Mini, OS + software and all. There is nothing inexpensive about Windows. Have you seen the hardware requirements for Vista? Have you ever purchased MS Office? Microsoft charges more for software than anyone else I can think of.
I really don't see how the studies can possibly prove anything. We'd have to look at who sponsored them, which institutions they studied, what grade levels, the degree to which the cheating happened. It's all bogus IMO. By 80% are you saying that 80% did it at least once in their academic career? One time in 18+ years still doesn't warrant to me telling every student they aren't trust worthy and subjecting them to Turnitin.com.
I suspect you're the type of educator I had serious issues with in high school. Lazy to the point of showing no real interest in your students, if you did you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt who was cheating rather than making blanket statements about how 80% of them are cheaters and punishing them all universally instead of addressing the real problem of making the assignments interesting and challenging enough for them to actually care.
I'm pretty much done with this nonsense but post whatever "studies" you like. I'm sure they'll reinforce your points very well.
There are a lot of ways to prevent, there are no ways to stop. For example forcing students to submit thesis 3 weeks before it's due, weekly rough draft submissions, work groups, etc. These are all standard practices anyway for most professors to make sure students are 1) learning as they work and 2) show an active involvement in their education. In lower division courses I can see a problem as they are often taught in auditoriums with 300 students and hour long lectures with little to no discourse, but even in these situations I don't see an automated system such as Turnitin.com helping as that professor still won't look through 300+ submissions, even with an aid to help.
With all the hype over electronic voting getting it wrong and all the horror stories (perhaps a dramatic way to phrase it), I don't understand how people can be so flippant over Turnitin.com which works on a very similar level only with much less scrutiny. All the tool does is allow some professors to be lazy while telling every single student they have they aren't trusted, will never be trusted and their work will be subject to an automated nanny.
Slashdot Mirror
Until we reduce the cost of living in this country companies will continue to outsource. It's all about money. I can't possibly earn less than 4k a month due to bills, rent, etc. Less than that and I am in serious doo doo (I live in California where prices do nothing but sky rocket every year).
Maybe it's me being paranoid but how in the world are jobs leaving this country they way they are and yet the cost of living goes up every single year? Housing prices are seemingly out of reach to everyone yet they keep selling. A recent report on the news here in CA was that fewer than 9% of the CA population can afford to buy a house in CA.
Until we can make it affordable to live here we'll never be able to hold on to the jobs.
Sounds like we have very similar work styles. I usually have a scenic background from interfacelift.com or some other place. I have a really big 23 inch flat screen and it looks nice in the apartment with a "pretty" background. My gf appreciates it a lot more than an ugly solid or something.
Not very long. After years of working with computers (over 20), I've found keeping it simple is best. I change the background, arrange icons how I like and that's about it these days, whether it's windows or OSX or Ubuntu. If the OS can't accommodate this simple style I don't use it.
Your tin foil hat is showing.
Read it again. It says, "and similar products" which would indeed include both of those you mentioned. Nice try.
They are about learning to research, to think, to meet deadlines and about preparing something professional for a critical reviewer. Some subjects require much less of this than others, but to say they aren't valuable or needed at all is ridiculous. I write papers every week (English major) and I couldn't imagine how my subject would possibly work without papers.
Just because some people don't like them doesn't mean they don't have a place and I'm very suspect of anyone who claims cheating is so rampant. I've yet to see anyone cheat and I know of no one who has cheated or been caught.
You're kicking a dead horse. It's not a question of legality, it's a civil case. If you think civil court has anything to do with law and order you're more ignorant than I previously assumed. It's a case brought by users, not the government. My point still stands. You can stop with the long winded 15 one line paragraphs now. You aren't convincing anyone but yourself.
Yep. It's like that old saying sales people have, "You can do right by the customer a 100 times but do them wrong once and that's what they'll remember."
It's you that's missing the point. There doesn't need to be a direct comparison of any kind. It's customer perspective that matters and customers feel ripped off. That simple fact invalidates all your rationalization on the matter.
That's what happens when you market stripped down versions and feature full versions at the same time. It's like being promised a BMW and getting a Honda instead. Most average users don't understand all these differences and the sales person happily told them "Vista will run on it" to make a sale.
Microsoft may or may not win this one but regardless, the damage is done as far as end users are concerned.
Sponsoring is all about pvp, which is terrible in WoW. Warhammer's pvp will blow the doors off of WoWs. I was a hardcore WoW player for over 2 years and recently gave it up because it's gotten so stagnant and repetitive. Seems silly to me to start a sponsorship two years into the games lifespan when it's population is dropping like flies and its pvp system is a joke.
As for my comments about the population dropping like flies I'll just say this. They claim 8.5 million subscribers but don't tell you how many are the hourly China accounts (they inflate that number a great deal). They also forget to tell everyone they only sold 3.5 million copies of the expansion. I can also tell you from person experience that a large number of people who've bought the expansion have quit. Blizzard has dozens and dozens of dead servers right now, huge population imbalances and broken pvp. Any company sponsoring a team under these circumstances is throwing away money.
Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism call for salvation of any kind. They both claim God picks and chooses at random who will be saved through his mercy and with no tangible reason. Calvin stated we had no choice in our salvation and no free will of any kind. We were merely puppets on a string doing as we were intended. Arminianism states the same thing with a caveat saying we can choose only not to obey God but even then, God being all knowing and all seeing planned ahead of time for our disobediences.
I would suggest looking into them before commenting further as you don't seem to understand the basics of either. I don't mean to be rude but if you don't understand even this (which happens to be the building block and foundation of both ideologies) then you will never be able to connect the dots on what I'm getting at.
I tend to believe the idea of single cell organisms evolving into us personally. It really just jives with my understanding of human evolution and how we, to this day, have vestigial organs which no longer function. Just looking at our skeleton you can see how it's changed over the last 500,000 years. Remember mutation isn't the only thing causing dramatic changes. Just because a mutation occurs doesn't mean it'll become dominant. We may have had a mutation 250,000 years ago that allowed us to breathe fire but if environment didn't encourge it as a beneficial trait, it would be selected out. Mutation happens all the time and there are significant environmental causes for them to be beneficial, for instance an ice age or warming period. Some mutations rely heavily on others, for example mankind may never have created civilization if wheat hadn't mutated on it's own to produce more seeds, allowing humans to plant it and grow crops and build encampments and tribes around their crops rather than having to go out and forage for food.
4 billion years is a very long time. Mankind as we know it has been around for barely a minute on the clock. I think there has been plenty of time, through trial and error, mutation, environmental changes and other factors, for single cell organisms to evolve into what we see today. That however is opinion and likely will never be provable save for the invention of time travel.
I would argue cause. It's the cycle of "hand me down" belief systems. This country, though it may not seem like it to some, still clings heavily to it's puritan heritage. It's very difficult in this country to break tradition.
You are correct. I was merely using it as a type of background into the mentality of the people debating this topic. Calvinism is interesting in that way as it's more than just a philosophy, it's a complete state of mind and it's impact on the world was larger than anyone today can truly understand. That impact continues today and it's that state of mind we're trying to convince. It's a very difficult prospect and not surprising that people are still such hardliners.
It's because the creationists are actively lobbying to remove evolution from public education and have managed to do exactly that on several occasions.
I see your point but disagree. People's beliefs are actually arbitrary most of the time, based on parentage and schooling. There is no singular "belief" in Christianity, there are Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and so on. All very different and requiring a whole different set of arbitrary characteristics.
Understanding science is similar, there are different categories, subcategories, fields of study and so on. It's not that people refuse to accept them, they may very well do exactly that when exposed to them. The problem is they are rarely exposed, often by choice. Why would the average joe research physics? It probably has nothing to do with his day to day life and his current religious beliefs probably work just fine.
I could go on but I think that's the gist of it. Until you break the cycle of "hand me down" belief systems, this will be the end result.
There are actually two versions of Genesis, the old Hebrew one where God is not a single being but Ilohim (which is plural and I may have spelled it wrong). Then there is the Christian version which has God as singular and omnipotent, all knowing and all seeing. The problem comes from Calvinism and it's strong (to this very day) influence on Christianity. If Genesis isn't literal to these people the foundation of Christianity falls apart. Evolution directly contradicts the Bible. You can not logically combine the two and have the same religion. Hell the Bible contradicts itself enough as it is, bu when you add evolution, all the theology goes right out the window.
Check out Calvinism and Arminianism on Wikipedia sometime. Use it as background for reading Miltons paradise lost and you'll begin to understand the history of the debate that still rages on today.
Most Americans (people over the age of 35ish) were never taught evolution in school and those who were have been taught poorly. I didn't realize the piss poor job my teachers did in junior high and high school until I took an anthropology class in college. People still like to quip that we evolved from monkeys but don't realize we evolved seperate from monkeys and share a common ancestor.
The ignorance to evolution is amazing in this country. It's no surprise at all people haven't embraced it here like they have overseas in Europe.
Google is viewed by most politicians (mind you most politicians couldn't tell you what html is) as being the defacto standard of the internet in terms of searching, maps etc. So when something is falsified, accidentally or on purpose, they view it as their duty as protectors of the American public to step in. It's really all BS. Truth is they don't understand it so they fear it and then begin legislating it. I can't explain it any simpler. I've worked with a lot of these types in the past and if there is anything they have in common it's the fear of technology.
I think OpenOffice can do the plugin thing better than MS can. Just look how multi platform plugins work for Firefox. The OO team can make cross platform plugins that work pretty seamlessly if they tried. MS will be locked into doing it on Windows only. I could be wrong of course but I don't see how MS can do plugins better than the OO people, especially consider OO uses open API's and formats. I would find OO the much more appealing option if I were a developer.
For the price of a full version of Windows Vista I can almost buy an entire Mac Mini, OS + software and all. There is nothing inexpensive about Windows. Have you seen the hardware requirements for Vista? Have you ever purchased MS Office? Microsoft charges more for software than anyone else I can think of.
I really don't see how the studies can possibly prove anything. We'd have to look at who sponsored them, which institutions they studied, what grade levels, the degree to which the cheating happened. It's all bogus IMO. By 80% are you saying that 80% did it at least once in their academic career? One time in 18+ years still doesn't warrant to me telling every student they aren't trust worthy and subjecting them to Turnitin.com.
I suspect you're the type of educator I had serious issues with in high school. Lazy to the point of showing no real interest in your students, if you did you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt who was cheating rather than making blanket statements about how 80% of them are cheaters and punishing them all universally instead of addressing the real problem of making the assignments interesting and challenging enough for them to actually care.
I'm pretty much done with this nonsense but post whatever "studies" you like. I'm sure they'll reinforce your points very well.
I'm not quite there yet. Just delved into the theory classes a couple semesters ago.
There are a lot of ways to prevent, there are no ways to stop. For example forcing students to submit thesis 3 weeks before it's due, weekly rough draft submissions, work groups, etc. These are all standard practices anyway for most professors to make sure students are 1) learning as they work and 2) show an active involvement in their education. In lower division courses I can see a problem as they are often taught in auditoriums with 300 students and hour long lectures with little to no discourse, but even in these situations I don't see an automated system such as Turnitin.com helping as that professor still won't look through 300+ submissions, even with an aid to help.
With all the hype over electronic voting getting it wrong and all the horror stories (perhaps a dramatic way to phrase it), I don't understand how people can be so flippant over Turnitin.com which works on a very similar level only with much less scrutiny. All the tool does is allow some professors to be lazy while telling every single student they have they aren't trusted, will never be trusted and their work will be subject to an automated nanny.