only government can, and inevitably they side with whoever has the most money to bribe them with
I'm not a huge fan of government, but believe it or not, government is not all part of a great big conspiracy. Every now and then, they do something right.
How exactly is it beneficial to override the contract between employer and employee in this way
ah, because when the law was passed, it wasn't unusualy for NONE of the OTHER employers to even offer a reasonable work week. Almost ALL employers used to make their employees buy a company home and shop in the company store using company script. Government had to intervene in employment law, because employees were barely at the level of "serf" in the late 1800's. Read your labor history.
would argue that traffic laws are now determined moreso by how much revenue they bring in to the local government, not by how much safer the roads will be.
I used to intern for a local government in PA back in Grad School. Did you know that running a speed trap actually COST the local municipality money? How, you ask? Because the police union would have a three hour minimum overtime payment for each time a policeman had to go to traffic court. In other words, if one out of every four traffic stops went to traffic court, the municipality would end up paying over $150 to the cop just to show up. They lost money on speed traps. It may not happen in every municipality, but it happens more often than you think.
How exactly is regulation necessary to charge a criminal with a crime?
Well, if there wasn't regulation of the equity markets, then the folks that built the huge lie that was Enron would not be facing criminal charges right now. Believe it or not, regulation of the markets is necessary, so the legitimate firms can understand where they have limits. Don't forget that in the late 1990's many legitimate firms had their employees on CNBC selling the benefits of each new IPO. The firm would pocket the profits when the IPO was released and the individual stockholders would end up losing their shirts. Although I think that Wall Street got away with alot during that time period, at least they are being fined to some extent for their stealing.
With a smaller, less costly government, private schools would be affordable for everyone
Everyone that promotes private schools in today's age always conveniently forgets the late 1800's push in the US to have "free education for all". Rememember that we have already tried private education back in the pre-Civil War days. It didn't work. Why can I say that? Because a few decades later,there were marches in the streets by many people, asking that GOVERNMENT provide a basic education to ALL.
There's no way that government has produced more advances in the health industry than private industry.
If you keep repeating yourself, you may actually end up believing yourself. Just kidding. Go to www.nih.gov. Read up on what your tax dollars are funding. Believe it or not, it actually is good.
most liberal arts majors are terrible at the sort of ordered thought that becoming an good programmer requires
I feel that I am becoming redundant, since I have posted this statement multiple times, but here it goes again:
I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science. I have a Master's Degree in Public Administration. I became a developer. Now, I am a stinking computer consultant. I've been consulting for over six years. I can tell you this, a career in IT requires the skill set of a burger flipper.
Learning how to program is NOT the same as teaching you how to THINK!
Anyone can learn how to program in any language. I'd rather hire someone that has had a liberal arts degree. I can always teach them Java, ABAP, C++, or whatever. At least with a liberal arts degree, they've learned somehting about thinking and planning and collabaration. They may have even taken some business or finance classes, where they can at least understand that debits are supposed to always equal credits.
Re:Headline dissappointed me....
on
Lawyers In Space...
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Can anyone here (who doesn't work in government) honestly say that the exponential growth of the US government over the past 100 years has helped more than it's hurt?
Hmmm...
Cleaner Water.
Clener Air.
Safer drug distibution (no more snake oil salemen)
The 40 hour work week (employment law).
Automobile and Highway safety standards.
Regulation of the Markets (The SEC is actually prosecuting Enron executives).
Banking and Finance Regulation (no more economic depressions with 25% unemployment).
Better education (well, at least the literacy rate is higher).
Longer life span (the NIH is researching cures to many diseases).
Yeah, nothing good comes out of government. Let's go back to the old days, where corruption ruled in Tammany Hall, there were "runs" on the banks, and the corporate trusts could destroy the individual.
PLEASE elect lawyers as politicians, that's one thing they're good for
Actually, the best type of person to elect to office is someone that understands how to implement the law. Running a government is a very complex task. And actually administering and interpreting the law as it was written takes quite a bit of skill. Lawyers may or may not be the best person to make that interpretation. If I was to pick the job skill that would be best suited for elective office, I would suggest Public Administration grads. Note that I said Public Administration, NOT Political Science. Those are two very different skill sets.
Disclaimer: I have a graduate degree in Public Administration (and my undergraduate degree is PoliSci), so I am totally biased. My past experience in government has shown that lawyers may be able to make a legal argument. That does not mean they know how to run a government.
Kirk probably couldn't have done that, because when he was in school, he hacked the computer to let him run a real chemical engineering program, instead of MacPaint.
Actually, when Kirk was in school, he was practicing his pick-up lines on the girls in the class. He just KNEW that that he would have to practice his lines if he ever going to bed the Green Chicks.
For most of these papers, you really do need some graduate level education to know what's going on
Thanks for that post--and for the support. I was rated a "Troll" for just being realistic and telling the guy that most of these papers are way beyond the comprehension of about 99% of the population. You have now provided the AC with an example of just how tough reading these papers will be. If you could only send a note to the moderator that gave me a Troll rating.....
Hey, If you can read and understand these articles then more power to you. Personally, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than of ever being able to understand what these 100 articles are talking about.
FYI -- I do have a Master's degree in Public Administration. Of course, an MPA is not real degreee because it's not "real" science. It was just a way for me to avoid Law School.
You have just answered what you can DO with citation indexing. What you can do with counting citations is not what I was asking. What I was asking is what kind of information can we gain by counting citations?
As far as I can tell, counting the citations is an interesting read. However, does it further the study of Physics in any way, shape or form? Does it provide deep insight into splitting atoms, or black holes, or any of those other subjects that excite physicists?
I doubt it does anything, except make for an interesting side read. (Oh, it also allows the articles authors to practice their statistical analysis.) Does anyone know any real research use for counting citations?
Note: I wasn't questioning Walter Kohn. I was questioning the theory behind the original article. How does counting citations become classified as "research".
So, someone does some research where they count the number of citations and then do some statistical analysis of it. I do recall reading similar articles in Grad School. A professor of such-and-such would count the number of citations in his or her field of study and publish a paper on it. So, if my memory is still correct, it's been done before in fields other than Physics (I wish I could remember what fields).
Does this type of research really tell us anything? To me, all this tells us is that many other researchers spent alot of money either trying to prove or disprove Walter Kohn's theories. What this article doesn't tell us is whether or not Walter Kohn's theories are valid in the first place.
At least it's kind of interesting. Well, interesting if you enjoy the study of splitting atoms.
Now my wife will kill me after I spend $500 on a new video card to play this game.
Easy fix. Buy your new video card for yourself. At the same time, buy HER a new bowling ball. Not only will she ignore your large expense, you might even get laid.
Actually, Edsel was made by Ford. Anyway, I was searching for a better analogy -- the Model T was not the best. That's because Henry Ford made the Model T into a huge success (millions and millions of Model T's were sold). After the success, he stopped innovating. As I recall the history, from the day the Model T was invented until Henry Ford Died about 20 years later Ford only sold one type of car, the Model T. Read that again. I said twenty years. Can you imagine a company today making the exact same model for twenty consecutive years?
Remember the famous saying "You can have any color you like, as long as it's black."? That is credited to Henry. He sold one car in one color for twenty years. Even though he popularized the automobile, and for many years, his car was the only one worth buying, his lack of innovation almost ran the Blue Oval into the ground.
Even with his lack of innovation, his one car totally changed the course of industrial history and led to a huge market shares for his company. It's just that he held on to that one car for far too long.
yet people kept buying Fords and praising the company as the leader of the automotive industry
Oh. I understand now. Microsoft, as a company, is a failure. The huge market share they have on their two primary products and the $60 Billion they have in the basic savings account really obscure the fact that they don't know how to run a business. If I want to start my own business, I should try to emulate all those other companies that used to compete with Microsoft, before they went out of business.
Don't get me wrong. I hate Microsoft. But, even I have to admit that they are a highly successful company. And, please don't go on about the ethics of the way they do things. I don't like what they do anymore than anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a huge fan of government, but believe it or not, government is not all part of a great big conspiracy. Every now and then, they do something right.
How exactly is it beneficial to override the contract between employer and employee in this wayah, because when the law was passed, it wasn't unusualy for NONE of the OTHER employers to even offer a reasonable work week. Almost ALL employers used to make their employees buy a company home and shop in the company store using company script. Government had to intervene in employment law, because employees were barely at the level of "serf" in the late 1800's. Read your labor history.
would argue that traffic laws are now determined moreso by how much revenue they bring in to the local government, not by how much safer the roads will be.I used to intern for a local government in PA back in Grad School. Did you know that running a speed trap actually COST the local municipality money? How, you ask? Because the police union would have a three hour minimum overtime payment for each time a policeman had to go to traffic court. In other words, if one out of every four traffic stops went to traffic court, the municipality would end up paying over $150 to the cop just to show up. They lost money on speed traps. It may not happen in every municipality, but it happens more often than you think.
How exactly is regulation necessary to charge a criminal with a crime?Well, if there wasn't regulation of the equity markets, then the folks that built the huge lie that was Enron would not be facing criminal charges right now. Believe it or not, regulation of the markets is necessary, so the legitimate firms can understand where they have limits. Don't forget that in the late 1990's many legitimate firms had their employees on CNBC selling the benefits of each new IPO. The firm would pocket the profits when the IPO was released and the individual stockholders would end up losing their shirts. Although I think that Wall Street got away with alot during that time period, at least they are being fined to some extent for their stealing.
With a smaller, less costly government, private schools would be affordable for everyoneEveryone that promotes private schools in today's age always conveniently forgets the late 1800's push in the US to have "free education for all". Rememember that we have already tried private education back in the pre-Civil War days. It didn't work. Why can I say that? Because a few decades later,there were marches in the streets by many people, asking that GOVERNMENT provide a basic education to ALL.
There's no way that government has produced more advances in the health industry than private industry.If you keep repeating yourself, you may actually end up believing yourself. Just kidding. Go to www.nih.gov. Read up on what your tax dollars are funding. Believe it or not, it actually is good.
That is freakin' hilarious. I'm laughing my ass off.....
I feel that I am becoming redundant, since I have posted this statement multiple times, but here it goes again:
I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science. I have a Master's Degree in Public Administration. I became a developer. Now, I am a stinking computer consultant. I've been consulting for over six years. I can tell you this, a career in IT requires the skill set of a burger flipper.
Ah, IBM is my employer, asshole. And I never said I enjoyed leaving my kid and my wife at home. In fact, it sucks. It sucks big time.
Oh, man, I should have RTFA'd. I've just lost alot of respect for IBM.
Learning how to program is NOT the same as teaching you how to THINK!
Anyone can learn how to program in any language. I'd rather hire someone that has had a liberal arts degree. I can always teach them Java, ABAP, C++, or whatever. At least with a liberal arts degree, they've learned somehting about thinking and planning and collabaration. They may have even taken some business or finance classes, where they can at least understand that debits are supposed to always equal credits.
Maybe you should jump into that discussion on whether or not lawyers should write laws
Hmmm...
Cleaner Water.
Clener Air.
Safer drug distibution (no more snake oil salemen)
The 40 hour work week (employment law).
Automobile and Highway safety standards.
Regulation of the Markets (The SEC is actually prosecuting Enron executives).
Banking and Finance Regulation (no more economic depressions with 25% unemployment).
Better education (well, at least the literacy rate is higher).
Longer life span (the NIH is researching cures to many diseases).
Yeah, nothing good comes out of government. Let's go back to the old days, where corruption ruled in Tammany Hall, there were "runs" on the banks, and the corporate trusts could destroy the individual.
Actually, the best type of person to elect to office is someone that understands how to implement the law. Running a government is a very complex task. And actually administering and interpreting the law as it was written takes quite a bit of skill. Lawyers may or may not be the best person to make that interpretation. If I was to pick the job skill that would be best suited for elective office, I would suggest Public Administration grads. Note that I said Public Administration, NOT Political Science. Those are two very different skill sets.
Disclaimer: I have a graduate degree in Public Administration (and my undergraduate degree is PoliSci), so I am totally biased. My past experience in government has shown that lawyers may be able to make a legal argument. That does not mean they know how to run a government.
Actually, when Kirk was in school, he was practicing his pick-up lines on the girls in the class. He just KNEW that that he would have to practice his lines if he ever going to bed the Green Chicks.
For some reason, I keep thinking of a scene in Star Trek IV where Scotty is seated at a circa-1980's computer trying to get it to operate.
Scotty: "Computer!"
Man in room (handing him a mouse): "Maybe you use this."
Scotty (speaking into the mouse like it was a microphone): "COMPUTER!"
Man in Room: "Maybe you should just use the keyboard"
Scotty: "A keyboard? How quaint!"
Thanks for that post--and for the support. I was rated a "Troll" for just being realistic and telling the guy that most of these papers are way beyond the comprehension of about 99% of the population. You have now provided the AC with an example of just how tough reading these papers will be. If you could only send a note to the moderator that gave me a Troll rating.....
Hey, If you can read and understand these articles then more power to you. Personally, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than of ever being able to understand what these 100 articles are talking about.
FYI -- I do have a Master's degree in Public Administration. Of course, an MPA is not real degreee because it's not "real" science. It was just a way for me to avoid Law School.
Ah, No.
You have just answered what you can DO with citation indexing. What you can do with counting citations is not what I was asking. What I was asking is what kind of information can we gain by counting citations?
As far as I can tell, counting the citations is an interesting read. However, does it further the study of Physics in any way, shape or form? Does it provide deep insight into splitting atoms, or black holes, or any of those other subjects that excite physicists?
I doubt it does anything, except make for an interesting side read. (Oh, it also allows the articles authors to practice their statistical analysis.) Does anyone know any real research use for counting citations?
Note: I wasn't questioning Walter Kohn. I was questioning the theory behind the original article. How does counting citations become classified as "research".
So, someone does some research where they count the number of citations and then do some statistical analysis of it. I do recall reading similar articles in Grad School. A professor of such-and-such would count the number of citations in his or her field of study and publish a paper on it. So, if my memory is still correct, it's been done before in fields other than Physics (I wish I could remember what fields).
Does this type of research really tell us anything? To me, all this tells us is that many other researchers spent alot of money either trying to prove or disprove Walter Kohn's theories. What this article doesn't tell us is whether or not Walter Kohn's theories are valid in the first place.
At least it's kind of interesting. Well, interesting if you enjoy the study of splitting atoms.
Yes, that's exactly what we need. ANOTHER committee.
Then, might I suggest that you never work for my company.
Because they have to spend at least one week translating the instruction manual and the cut-scenes from US English into British English.
Easy fix. Buy your new video card for yourself. At the same time, buy HER a new bowling ball. Not only will she ignore your large expense, you might even get laid.
Better yet, we could sell them some parachutes to use on Beagle 3.
Actually, Edsel was made by Ford. Anyway, I was searching for a better analogy -- the Model T was not the best. That's because Henry Ford made the Model T into a huge success (millions and millions of Model T's were sold). After the success, he stopped innovating. As I recall the history, from the day the Model T was invented until Henry Ford Died about 20 years later Ford only sold one type of car, the Model T. Read that again. I said twenty years. Can you imagine a company today making the exact same model for twenty consecutive years?
Remember the famous saying "You can have any color you like, as long as it's black."? That is credited to Henry. He sold one car in one color for twenty years. Even though he popularized the automobile, and for many years, his car was the only one worth buying, his lack of innovation almost ran the Blue Oval into the ground.
Even with his lack of innovation, his one car totally changed the course of industrial history and led to a huge market shares for his company. It's just that he held on to that one car for far too long.
Oh. I understand now. Microsoft, as a company, is a failure. The huge market share they have on their two primary products and the $60 Billion they have in the basic savings account really obscure the fact that they don't know how to run a business. If I want to start my own business, I should try to emulate all those other companies that used to compete with Microsoft, before they went out of business.
Don't get me wrong. I hate Microsoft. But, even I have to admit that they are a highly successful company. And, please don't go on about the ethics of the way they do things. I don't like what they do anymore than anyone else.
To paraphrase the late US Senator Everett Dirksen -- "A Billion here and a Billion there, pretty soon, you are talking about some real money."