"The idea that academic institutions make any money on PhD students is downright false." They're not training you out of the goodness of their heart. If Universities were not producing a glut of PhD candidates and graduates, how much would it cost them to hire labor to run the labs / discussion sections / classes, etc.? I didn't pay for my PhD, but I worked in my advisor's lab as an RA. I was making about $500 a month via stipend (this was years ago) and we used to figure that conservatively we were being paid about $3-5 an hour for our lab work. After getting my Master's I was teaching classes. I would teach anywhere from 40 to 325 students in one of my classes. The most I was ever paid for this was $2500 / class. Compared to the compensation package of a tenure track professor, I was a bargain! Thanks to the glut of PhD students you could get the teaching of a tenure track professor done for $15,000 / year. Face it, PhD minions are a cheap, exploitable (you don't like it, we've got 5 other applicants who would gladly take your place) labor force.
Environment might have something to do with it. I live in a house surrounded by woods, and my house is very humid all the time. I have had a number of DVDs crap out on me, including some Criterion Collection discs that were not cheap. Every effort I made to clean the discs didn't help, and trying to play them in a number of different players didn't offer relief either.
Like the parent, I have given up on collecting DVDs.
OP said the logs went up to 1900. Opium wars were 1839 - 1860. The 19th century was 1801 - 1900. Perhaps you were thinking 19th century was 1901 - 2000? I would also suggest that the opium wars were the head of a long-term attitude on both sides. The Chinese weren't interested in European trade. The Europeans had nothing the Chinese wanted. On the other hand, the Europeans were desperate for Chinese goods.
In defense of the Chinese who found themselves trading with 19th century Europeans, that might be expected when you force one party to trade at gunpoint.
True, with inflation the price of the CD has probably dropped somewhat since the early 80s. But compare that price drop with price drop of the CD player. I think you could argue that the savings in terms of reproduction costs, recording costs, packaging, etc. have not been passed on to the CD cost the way they were for the CD player.
My first CD player had no features and cost >$500. I could buy one today that was a quarter of the size and a fifth of the price with LOTS of programming features and a remote control. The CD I buy today is cheaper to reproduce, cheaper to record, and cheaper to package (remember the big boxes they came in during the 80s?) but I don't pay a fifth of the price.
I can remember the first CD's I bought in the early 1980s. The price was much higher than vinyl, but there were a number of advantages: easier playback, no wear to CDs, etc. The other "comfort" was that I was paying higher prices for CD's because I was an early adopter of the format. As the format became more mainstream, the price would drop. Shyaaa, right...
Interesting experiences. I too have had experience with both the U.S. and U.K. and I came away with a much higher opinion of the U.K. I lived in the U.K. for about a year and towards the end of my stay my parents came for a visit. My mother hurt her back getting out of the bath on the weekend. By Monday (a bank holiday Monday) she was bedridden and my landlord suggested we call the hospital. I was very skeptical, having grown up with the U.S. system. I called the local hospital (South London - Herne Hill) and the first thing they asked was whether she was well enough to travel to the hospital. If not, they offered to come to the house. I couldn't believe it. I told them we would get her in a cab and bring her over. Once there, there was no paperwork to fill out, and they saw her right away. After just a few minutes she was given a prescription for a muscle relaxer and a pain-killer. Got another cab to take my folks back to my place, and then I asked the cab driver to take me to the nearest chemist to fill the prescription. Got both prescriptions filled for about $16. I tipped the cabbie handsomely when he dropped me at my place. He asked me, "Do you know how much you are giving me here?" I told him I did, and that it was because I was having a great day. In the U.S. I would have had to have taken her to an emergency room. That would have taken 4 to 12 hours of my day and cost her about $500 copayment. Then the drugs would have cost another $65 copayment. In the U.K the whole thing took less than an hour portal to portal, and the cost was $20. As others have commented, maybe the U.K. is better for the little things than the big things, but I've got plenty of U.S. horror stories for big things too. I just find it interesting that the U.K. spends significantly less in terms of GDP and they don't have reduced life expectancy than the U.S.
But correlation isn't causality. It may be that cheaper = worse, or it may be that cheaper = smaller form factor = more portability = more transportation and use = more wear and tear = more breakdowns. The article also says that Apple laptops are less reliable, but it could also be that Apple laptops are used more by their owners and again are subject or greater wear and tear. Or it could be that Apple makes crap laptops. With a correlation design, you cannot infer causality.
You're forgetting searches where people are looking for other people, not for facebook.com. If you are wondering what ever happened to Suzy Q. from down the road when you were little, a Google search might lead you to facebook.com.
The correlation coefficient or r value alone does not tell one whether the relationship is statistically significant or not. It is the correlation coefficient in light of the sample size that determines this. So, for example, if we set Type I error at.05, a correlation coefficient (Pearson r) of.33 would be significant if the sample size was 37, but it would not be with a sample size of 30. On the other hand, with sample size of 100, even correlations of.195 are considered statistically significant.
What do these companies do with all of these employees? They had 30K and can cut 3K at the drop of a hat? Adobe has about 7K, Google 20K, Apple 32K, Microsoft 91K and IBM nearly 400K!! What do all of these people do?
By way of comparison, Harvard has 13K and GM had about 245K. How many TPS reports do 10K employees generate?
Not sure where you got that from. The difference in terms can be traced back to different theoretical perspectives on the same set of symptoms. Over time, the pendulum has shifted back and forth regarding whether the symptoms were the responsibility of the individual or the social environment the individual was raised in. If you think antisocial personality disorder is the result of individual choices or some sort of illness, you may be more likely to use the term psychopath. If you think that the symptoms are the result of a person's social environment, you may be more likely to use sociopath. The terms themselves do not denote two recognized different disorders. Check out DSM for definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder, or there's always Wikipedia.
She was always something dragged out of a cesspool. I was in California during her run against Michael Huffington for the Senate. Lots of dirty tricks... Among my favorites: both agreed not to use notes during a televised debate. Feinstein had written notes on her hand, and when she gestured they could be seen by the television audience; Feinstein's camp revealed that Huffington's house had been purchased under a contract that stated that he would not turn around and sell it to a member of a racial minority. The San Francisco papers then started digging and found that Feinstein had purchased a house under similar conditions. Better for everyone if she would crawl back under the rock from which she came, and I say that as a lifelong Democrat.
Perhaps the best part of giving a Mac is iChat. With iChat, not only can you keep in touch for free, you also have remote control of the other person's desktop. I've equipped family members with Macs, and now if they have a problem I just contact them in iChat, use the program to take control of their machine from my machine, and take care of business. The interface is a dream come true!
Exactly wrong. Premium cable channels were originally commercial free in the U.S. That was one of the reasons early cable was a "big deal." One watched movies on HBO for example, not commercials. AMC is another good example. No commercials ever. Almost all cable channels in the late 70s / early 80s had limited or no commercials. Then the commercial creep set in. Commercials between the movies. OK. Commercials during the movie, lots of them. And in the intervening time cable rates have gone up at rates that far exceed inflation. We're paying more for cable and getting way more commercials. It's crap. And before someone says that channels like AMC now offer original programming, let me remind you that they introduced commercials long before they produced original programming.
"Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)."
Fun hack, but in the end you have a used machine that runs OS X with no sound for ~ $300. For the same money and less time you could have bought a used Mac with sound and a screen and no worries about software upgrades.
Not only are others trying to do this now, there are also plenty of examples from Apple's past that illustrate how dangerous such a product would be to Apple's bottom line. Whether it's Franklin Apple II's, the Brazilian early Mac clones, or Apple's own licensing fiasco in the early PowerPC days, it's clear that Apple must be very protective or take a serious punch to profits.
Remember Power Computing? In the licensing days of Apple, before Jobs returned and pole-axed the licenses, Power Computing was really starting to hurt Apple. They were releasing faster hardware earlier than Apple, and even their primitive marketing efforts (who remembers, "Let's kick Intel's Ass" with the Sluggo cartoon?) were getting the best of Apple. They were really starting to carve out their own share of Apple's customers before Jobs pulled the plug.
Slashdot Mirror
"The idea that academic institutions make any money on PhD students is downright false." They're not training you out of the goodness of their heart. If Universities were not producing a glut of PhD candidates and graduates, how much would it cost them to hire labor to run the labs / discussion sections / classes, etc.? I didn't pay for my PhD, but I worked in my advisor's lab as an RA. I was making about $500 a month via stipend (this was years ago) and we used to figure that conservatively we were being paid about $3-5 an hour for our lab work. After getting my Master's I was teaching classes. I would teach anywhere from 40 to 325 students in one of my classes. The most I was ever paid for this was $2500 / class. Compared to the compensation package of a tenure track professor, I was a bargain! Thanks to the glut of PhD students you could get the teaching of a tenure track professor done for $15,000 / year. Face it, PhD minions are a cheap, exploitable (you don't like it, we've got 5 other applicants who would gladly take your place) labor force.
Environment might have something to do with it. I live in a house surrounded by woods, and my house is very humid all the time. I have had a number of DVDs crap out on me, including some Criterion Collection discs that were not cheap. Every effort I made to clean the discs didn't help, and trying to play them in a number of different players didn't offer relief either. Like the parent, I have given up on collecting DVDs.
I couldn't get past "Romanes eunt Domus."
Thirty years ago Bow Wow Wow charted a song called "C30 C60 C90 Go" which basically extolled the virtues of recording vinyl onto tape.
They hate it when you do that.
If YouTube is an Italian TV Station, where are the breasts?
OP said the logs went up to 1900. Opium wars were 1839 - 1860. The 19th century was 1801 - 1900. Perhaps you were thinking 19th century was 1901 - 2000? I would also suggest that the opium wars were the head of a long-term attitude on both sides. The Chinese weren't interested in European trade. The Europeans had nothing the Chinese wanted. On the other hand, the Europeans were desperate for Chinese goods.
In defense of the Chinese who found themselves trading with 19th century Europeans, that might be expected when you force one party to trade at gunpoint.
Noboby ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other bastard die for his - George S. Patton
True, with inflation the price of the CD has probably dropped somewhat since the early 80s. But compare that price drop with price drop of the CD player. I think you could argue that the savings in terms of reproduction costs, recording costs, packaging, etc. have not been passed on to the CD cost the way they were for the CD player. My first CD player had no features and cost >$500. I could buy one today that was a quarter of the size and a fifth of the price with LOTS of programming features and a remote control. The CD I buy today is cheaper to reproduce, cheaper to record, and cheaper to package (remember the big boxes they came in during the 80s?) but I don't pay a fifth of the price.
I can remember the first CD's I bought in the early 1980s. The price was much higher than vinyl, but there were a number of advantages: easier playback, no wear to CDs, etc. The other "comfort" was that I was paying higher prices for CD's because I was an early adopter of the format. As the format became more mainstream, the price would drop. Shyaaa, right...
Interesting experiences. I too have had experience with both the U.S. and U.K. and I came away with a much higher opinion of the U.K. I lived in the U.K. for about a year and towards the end of my stay my parents came for a visit. My mother hurt her back getting out of the bath on the weekend. By Monday (a bank holiday Monday) she was bedridden and my landlord suggested we call the hospital. I was very skeptical, having grown up with the U.S. system. I called the local hospital (South London - Herne Hill) and the first thing they asked was whether she was well enough to travel to the hospital. If not, they offered to come to the house. I couldn't believe it. I told them we would get her in a cab and bring her over. Once there, there was no paperwork to fill out, and they saw her right away. After just a few minutes she was given a prescription for a muscle relaxer and a pain-killer. Got another cab to take my folks back to my place, and then I asked the cab driver to take me to the nearest chemist to fill the prescription. Got both prescriptions filled for about $16. I tipped the cabbie handsomely when he dropped me at my place. He asked me, "Do you know how much you are giving me here?" I told him I did, and that it was because I was having a great day. In the U.S. I would have had to have taken her to an emergency room. That would have taken 4 to 12 hours of my day and cost her about $500 copayment. Then the drugs would have cost another $65 copayment. In the U.K the whole thing took less than an hour portal to portal, and the cost was $20. As others have commented, maybe the U.K. is better for the little things than the big things, but I've got plenty of U.S. horror stories for big things too. I just find it interesting that the U.K. spends significantly less in terms of GDP and they don't have reduced life expectancy than the U.S.
But correlation isn't causality. It may be that cheaper = worse, or it may be that cheaper = smaller form factor = more portability = more transportation and use = more wear and tear = more breakdowns. The article also says that Apple laptops are less reliable, but it could also be that Apple laptops are used more by their owners and again are subject or greater wear and tear. Or it could be that Apple makes crap laptops. With a correlation design, you cannot infer causality.
You're forgetting searches where people are looking for other people, not for facebook.com. If you are wondering what ever happened to Suzy Q. from down the road when you were little, a Google search might lead you to facebook.com.
Let's see you entertain a kitten with a hamburger...
The correlation coefficient or r value alone does not tell one whether the relationship is statistically significant or not. It is the correlation coefficient in light of the sample size that determines this. So, for example, if we set Type I error at .05, a correlation coefficient (Pearson r) of .33 would be significant if the sample size was 37, but it would not be with a sample size of 30. On the other hand, with sample size of 100, even correlations of .195 are considered statistically significant.
What do these companies do with all of these employees? They had 30K and can cut 3K at the drop of a hat? Adobe has about 7K, Google 20K, Apple 32K, Microsoft 91K and IBM nearly 400K!! What do all of these people do? By way of comparison, Harvard has 13K and GM had about 245K. How many TPS reports do 10K employees generate?
Not sure where you got that from. The difference in terms can be traced back to different theoretical perspectives on the same set of symptoms. Over time, the pendulum has shifted back and forth regarding whether the symptoms were the responsibility of the individual or the social environment the individual was raised in. If you think antisocial personality disorder is the result of individual choices or some sort of illness, you may be more likely to use the term psychopath. If you think that the symptoms are the result of a person's social environment, you may be more likely to use sociopath. The terms themselves do not denote two recognized different disorders. Check out DSM for definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder, or there's always Wikipedia.
OK, how about the old HP-150? The place I worked at part-time in college had one of these back in 1984. Oh, by the way, GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
She was always something dragged out of a cesspool. I was in California during her run against Michael Huffington for the Senate. Lots of dirty tricks... Among my favorites: both agreed not to use notes during a televised debate. Feinstein had written notes on her hand, and when she gestured they could be seen by the television audience; Feinstein's camp revealed that Huffington's house had been purchased under a contract that stated that he would not turn around and sell it to a member of a racial minority. The San Francisco papers then started digging and found that Feinstein had purchased a house under similar conditions. Better for everyone if she would crawl back under the rock from which she came, and I say that as a lifelong Democrat.
Perhaps the best part of giving a Mac is iChat. With iChat, not only can you keep in touch for free, you also have remote control of the other person's desktop. I've equipped family members with Macs, and now if they have a problem I just contact them in iChat, use the program to take control of their machine from my machine, and take care of business. The interface is a dream come true!
As a wise man once said to me: "A new broom sweeps like hell, but the old broom knows where the dirt is..."
Exactly wrong. Premium cable channels were originally commercial free in the U.S. That was one of the reasons early cable was a "big deal." One watched movies on HBO for example, not commercials. AMC is another good example. No commercials ever. Almost all cable channels in the late 70s / early 80s had limited or no commercials. Then the commercial creep set in. Commercials between the movies. OK. Commercials during the movie, lots of them. And in the intervening time cable rates have gone up at rates that far exceed inflation. We're paying more for cable and getting way more commercials. It's crap. And before someone says that channels like AMC now offer original programming, let me remind you that they introduced commercials long before they produced original programming.
"Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)." Fun hack, but in the end you have a used machine that runs OS X with no sound for ~ $300. For the same money and less time you could have bought a used Mac with sound and a screen and no worries about software upgrades.
Not only are others trying to do this now, there are also plenty of examples from Apple's past that illustrate how dangerous such a product would be to Apple's bottom line. Whether it's Franklin Apple II's, the Brazilian early Mac clones, or Apple's own licensing fiasco in the early PowerPC days, it's clear that Apple must be very protective or take a serious punch to profits. Remember Power Computing? In the licensing days of Apple, before Jobs returned and pole-axed the licenses, Power Computing was really starting to hurt Apple. They were releasing faster hardware earlier than Apple, and even their primitive marketing efforts (who remembers, "Let's kick Intel's Ass" with the Sluggo cartoon?) were getting the best of Apple. They were really starting to carve out their own share of Apple's customers before Jobs pulled the plug.