Since it entertained you that much, I uploaded a picture I took of one of them. They've been posting those for years, but some are more entertaining than others.
Every time I see them, I am reminded of the giant poster that came with Maniac Mansion.
Sounds like you're homeless now. The basics are important especially in your own field.
Not everyone needs to know how to prove that the acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s, but if you're a physicist, you better be able to.
But if you mean a science like biochemistry or physics, where you do controlled experiments, then no, it is not a hard science. Some people differentiate "hard" from "soft" sciences.
Where do you categorize astronomy in that way of looking at things?
Then why does economics fail to predict so many economic problems before they happen?
We understand the physics behind weather, but who can predict how many hurricanes will happen next year?
Countries generally avoid the economic problems that can be easily predicted (for example, printing money freely like Zimbabwe did for a while, which we know will cause inflation) so we don't see those.
You're confused. Economics is the study of economies. Even if the US is a complete totalitarian monarchy, it still has some kind of economy, and economics would study it.
Also, the guy in your first link doesn't know what "Reason" means.
Well that's just your system. What if we brought in communism and simply gave everyone enough and made everyone work? An extreme example, but it applies to every minor law and social rule.
You'd have a whole new set of laws to work within.
The socio-political laws have just such a great impact. Not just communism. But every law, group of power...
Your ignorance is hurting you here. Supply/demand doesn't disappear just because you've implemented communism, someone will have to manage that. MV=PQ doesn't disappear because of communism. Economics doesn't disappear because of communism. In fact, the only way to implement a command economy is to have a solid understanding of economics: without it, you will almost certainly fail.
Capitalism != Economics. Economics can explain a lot that happens under capitalsim, but it can also explain a lot that happens under communism.
That's the same argument against climate science, right? "You can't run CO2 experiments on multiple earths, because we only have one of them."
The reality though, is that both climate science and economics do run experiments. They can't run every experiment they'd like to, but that's a problem with every field of science.
Yes. Again, economics is not the same as "trading on the stock market." It's also not the same as "a plan to get rich."
In fact, explaining why the same get-rich-quick scheme will not work for everyone is economics. Because if everyone does the same thing, then the value of that thing will be very small (supply/demand).
If you think "parallel legal systems", "protectionism for the rich," and general fears about the 1% are economics, then you don't know much about economics.
People like you would become smarter if you picked up an economics textbook.
In economics it seems that there are no fundamental rules or at least if there are nobody has yet found them given the total inability of economics to predict the economy.
It only seems that way to you because you know nothing about economics. Take a class or something and stop being ignorant.
The police hire another "physicist" who claims the car was built to be stripped in the first place. People who know nothing about physics get confused and change the channel. Some of them vote in the next election.
Any chance you could dumb this down into a car analogy for me?
An physicist builds you a car: real nice thing with gold plated windows. During the night, the car gets stripped. Rims stolen, battery ripped out and lying on the street, headlights bashed in, the entire top turned into a convertible. The engine was stolen for scrap metal. In the morning, you walk outside, and while you're calling the police, someone shoots you. When the police come, they steal your wallet. The police and the vandals walk off together for drinks and donuts.
Be careful not to confuse "economics" with "trading on the stock market." They're not the same.
Don't confuse "academic economists" with "political economists." Academic economists write papers; political economists write editorials and go on TV shows (although the same person can play each role at different times).
People who think economics is not a science usually have no understanding of economics. The author, for example, uses examples of economists (and non-economists) who failed to predict what direction the market would go. This is like saying, "Physics is not science because we still don't have FTL travel. Fail."
Economics is a science, and it has a useful body of knowledge. MV = PQ is among the most tested theories in science. Gresham's law. The business cycle. All other things equal, an increase in supply will reduce prices. The biggest problem of economics isn't the lack of "hardness," it's the difficulty of running experiments (you can't re-run the depression six hundred times), so eliminating variables is difficult.
Anyone who thinks economics is the art of predicting the stock market, will be confused, like the author of this article.
If you are a cop, suck it up and stop putting YOUR live above someone elses. you chose to pick a dangerous line of work, so act like you are a public servant.
You're not going to have many cops if you make that a requirement. And most of the ones you get will be complete psychopaths (or hopelessly rude)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, so how do you solve that problem?
Since it entertained you that much, I uploaded a picture I took of one of them. They've been posting those for years, but some are more entertaining than others.
Every time I see them, I am reminded of the giant poster that came with Maniac Mansion.
Sounds like a nice idea.
Good luck hiring cops, then.
Apparently, depending on your goals, it could improve your career chances
Every once in a while around here I see a poster saying:
"Depressed? Stanford will pay you to let us study your brain! You will not be harmed!"
That sucks.
I hope his site gets hacked as retribution for being so cheap.
Looking at my undergrad experience as a whole, i learned waaaay more in 3-4 semesters of co-op / hands on training than I did in 4 years of classes.
If you really didn't learn anything in 4 years of classes, then you either failed or your school failed you.
And I'm not talking about your grades.
Sounds like you're homeless now. The basics are important especially in your own field.
Not everyone needs to know how to prove that the acceleration of gravity is ~9.8 m/s, but if you're a physicist, you better be able to.
There's no shortage of qualified developers.
Sadly, looking around at my fellow developers, there sure seems to be.
And it's not a problem that will be solved by 'less' education.
What is the bare minimum a code monkey must know so that he can do professional code monkeying?
It really depends. In some cases, all you need to do is be able to set up a Wordpress site.
But if you mean a science like biochemistry or physics, where you do controlled experiments, then no, it is not a hard science. Some people differentiate "hard" from "soft" sciences.
Where do you categorize astronomy in that way of looking at things?
I seem to be beyond "no understanding"
That can be cured, go take an economics class or read a book.
as a physicist I always feel insulted when economics is called "science".
That can be cured too....give up your stupid ego. Physicists don't know everything, or even most things.
Then why does economics fail to predict so many economic problems before they happen?
We understand the physics behind weather, but who can predict how many hurricanes will happen next year?
Countries generally avoid the economic problems that can be easily predicted (for example, printing money freely like Zimbabwe did for a while, which we know will cause inflation) so we don't see those.
You're confused. Economics is the study of economies. Even if the US is a complete totalitarian monarchy, it still has some kind of economy, and economics would study it.
Also, the guy in your first link doesn't know what "Reason" means.
Well that's just your system. What if we brought in communism and simply gave everyone enough and made everyone work? An extreme example, but it applies to every minor law and social rule. You'd have a whole new set of laws to work within. The socio-political laws have just such a great impact. Not just communism. But every law, group of power...
Your ignorance is hurting you here. Supply/demand doesn't disappear just because you've implemented communism, someone will have to manage that. MV=PQ doesn't disappear because of communism. Economics doesn't disappear because of communism. In fact, the only way to implement a command economy is to have a solid understanding of economics: without it, you will almost certainly fail.
Capitalism != Economics. Economics can explain a lot that happens under capitalsim, but it can also explain a lot that happens under communism.
It's not sceince if you never do any experiments.
That's the same argument against climate science, right? "You can't run CO2 experiments on multiple earths, because we only have one of them."
The reality though, is that both climate science and economics do run experiments. They can't run every experiment they'd like to, but that's a problem with every field of science.
Yes. Again, economics is not the same as "trading on the stock market." It's also not the same as "a plan to get rich."
In fact, explaining why the same get-rich-quick scheme will not work for everyone is economics. Because if everyone does the same thing, then the value of that thing will be very small (supply/demand).
If you think "parallel legal systems", "protectionism for the rich," and general fears about the 1% are economics, then you don't know much about economics.
People like you would become smarter if you picked up an economics textbook.
In economics it seems that there are no fundamental rules or at least if there are nobody has yet found them given the total inability of economics to predict the economy.
It only seems that way to you because you know nothing about economics. Take a class or something and stop being ignorant.
The police hire another "physicist" who claims the car was built to be stripped in the first place. People who know nothing about physics get confused and change the channel. Some of them vote in the next election.
Any chance you could dumb this down into a car analogy for me?
An physicist builds you a car: real nice thing with gold plated windows. During the night, the car gets stripped. Rims stolen, battery ripped out and lying on the street, headlights bashed in, the entire top turned into a convertible. The engine was stolen for scrap metal. In the morning, you walk outside, and while you're calling the police, someone shoots you. When the police come, they steal your wallet. The police and the vandals walk off together for drinks and donuts.
It was a really nice car.
When I started reading psychology papers, I was shocked to discover that many studies are done with a sample size of less than 10.
Be careful not to confuse "economics" with "trading on the stock market." They're not the same.
Don't confuse "academic economists" with "political economists." Academic economists write papers; political economists write editorials and go on TV shows (although the same person can play each role at different times).
People who think economics is not a science usually have no understanding of economics. The author, for example, uses examples of economists (and non-economists) who failed to predict what direction the market would go. This is like saying, "Physics is not science because we still don't have FTL travel. Fail."
Economics is a science, and it has a useful body of knowledge. MV = PQ is among the most tested theories in science. Gresham's law. The business cycle. All other things equal, an increase in supply will reduce prices. The biggest problem of economics isn't the lack of "hardness," it's the difficulty of running experiments (you can't re-run the depression six hundred times), so eliminating variables is difficult.
Anyone who thinks economics is the art of predicting the stock market, will be confused, like the author of this article.
If you are a cop, suck it up and stop putting YOUR live above someone elses. you chose to pick a dangerous line of work, so act like you are a public servant.
You're not going to have many cops if you make that a requirement. And most of the ones you get will be complete psychopaths (or hopelessly rude)