Well.... depends on what you mean by "better benefits". If you mean health insurance, life insurance, etc... my experience (from both sides of the fence) is that university people *think* they have great benefits but really they overpay in $ for what may be significantly less (or just average) coverage compared to the private sector.
On the other hand, if by benefits you mean leave/vacation and the more intangible benefits... definitely better leave policies and the intangibles are arguably better* (personal preference). Also, for people with families... there are often reduced or free tuition, etc for their dependents.
* my experience on one area of "intangibles", processes/efficiency, is that universities have more byzantine and opaque processes than private sector.
Read it yourself-- not outlandish and makes a good case for the methodology used.
Also, I encourage you to look at other studies that are related as I think you might be interested. For example, the following says nothing about whether radiation in bite-wing x-rays is dangerous, rather it explores the question "what is the most effective technique for patient treatment" (my wording not theirs):
Research is a good thing. Research applied is a very good thing. Results of research ignored because "this is how we do it" and "it's really not dangerous anyway you silly scardy cat" is a very sad and potentially dangerous thing. Note-- not directed at jd, this is just my observation (okay, frustration) of how it sometimes "is" in the real world.
> how did you (and presumably millions of others who Googled "remove google background") miss that?
My google home page did NOT have the text "remove google background"... it read "change google background". I clicked the link and there was not an option to remove the background... just change it(presumably one could have changed it to blank/white).
Sorry but that statement is not accurate... one example: I have to drive my family of 9 around... an SUV (Suburban) is quite practical for that purpose. In fact, few other vehicles could handle the task... A truck could not. A mini-van could not. Not many other choices today outside of a full-size van but the gas mileage on those is not better than an SUV (maybe even worse). I know I'm not the only one with requirements to transport more than a handful of people at a time.
We try hard to minimize trips (e.g. a rule of thumb is that we don't go into town for just one purpose).
Also the Suburban is not the regular commuter vehicle in our household either. When 3 or fewer of us need to go somewhere-- we use the 3 seat 4 cylinder vehicle instead.
Looking back over your post, I see that there are some other inaccuracies in your post as well... items a-d can certainly be accomplished with SUVs. Other items like pulling a harrow in a field, pulling up deep sunk fence posts, towing broken vehicles, etc can also be accomplished with a Suburban (I've done it with ease).
All that said, I like the Veggie Tale song "Sports Utility Vehicle" as there is truth in it (and it's funny)... "You and me in our sport utility vehicles crusin to Dunkin Donuts for a cup of steaming Joe. Oh you and me in our sport utility vehicles we'll slam into 4-wheel drive for a scoop of rocky road".
I do educate my children, but guess what... I put the steak knives up high where the little children have a hard time getting to them. Yes, they could use a chair to climb higher (and yes some of them have done so), but to simply throw up ones hands and say "there is a way to subvert this so it's useless" and just put the knives on the floor would be absurd.
Whether one is considering something like a bank vault or using parental controls, there are always residual risks to be dealt with with (that doesn't mean we just don't use those tools).
A DHCP request is not permission, any more than taking the key in my fake rock is permission to enter my house.
Hmmm... I think your fake rock analogy has some serious flaws unless your fake rock acts in the following or a similar manner:
Fake rock: Hey everybody I'm a fake rock, and my name is Rocky, and I've got a key to provide to a house!
Passer by: Hi Rocky, may I have the key you're advertising?
Fake rock: Certainly! Here's a key [fake rock somehow "hands" the key to passer by] and here are the directions to the door [this is similar to an AP that when offering an IP also provides a default gateway]
Basically, the difference is that an AP is *actively* soliciting it's service *and* it actively responds to requests. There are many reasonably accessible ways to configure an AP to act differently including not advertising is SSID, using WEP/WPA/etc, MAC filtering, or perhaps even simply NOT PROVIDING default gateway, DNS servers, etc.
Hold on now... no one proposed "hacking" anything so comparing it to "hack[ing] a satellite box" is absurd. The description of how the "hardware" (more than hardware actually) works is extremely relevant... in this case one item is advertising availability and another device says "hi here's who I am (mac address) may I have access?" and the first device responded "certainly, here is an IP address and other info (dns, etc)". IANAL, but that sure sounds like an agreement was made (as opposed to your stealing a bike example because no one *offered* a bicycle and no one *asked permission* to use it and no one *granted* such use).
Also, I suggest that many people intentionally leave their access points open as a form of hospitality, etc. One very public example is security expert Bruce Schneier http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html . So one does NOT need to assume that the person offering an open access point is "ignorant". Clearly the temporary use of the offered access is not ironclad "exploitation of ignorance".
Absurd or greedy use of an offered courtesy (e.g. downloading such massive amounts of data that cause degraded service to others or surcharges) is inappropriate and impolite but that does not automatically make something illegal. For example if cookies are offered for free I don't let my children take all or even a large portion of them; however I would be shocked if someone suggested that someone taking most or even all of the offered free cookies was a thief and should be prosecuted.
Also, your assertion about legal responsibility for what occurs through one's access point proving use of open access points to be illegal seems extremely questionable at best to me and most likely IMHO not relevant to whether or not use of an open access point is "theft" like stealing a bicycle.
While I agree that there are many similarities between the states in the U.S., I have to disagree that there no differences at all. A very timely example is a discussion I took part in just last night with an "Easterner" that had moved to my area (Southwest) a few years ago. We are both involved in the same small charitable organization (so there are some similarities there) and we have some similarities due to faith backgrounds as well. She remarked on how different the approach to getting things done was in this area and the culture of where she came from. She partly attributed her perspective and methods to being an "Easterner".
My work took me to an East Coast state for a few years and I definitely found significant differences there (some good some bad from my perspective).
There are also differences between adjoining states-- at least in the states I have lived in (both in the the Southwest and on the East Coast).
All that said, having a balance between federal and state rights is more than just "culture" differences between the states... I think having the division allows for the opportunity for individuals voices to be heard more clearly. I have a much better chance of speaking with state representatives and influencing legislation than I do at the federal level (although I have communicated with both state and local officials).
Would he switch his stance on something if presented strong evidence ?
I suggest you consider how Mr. Huckabee changed his views on health care (including his own health problems and dramatic weight loss). While some might not see this as a big deal, I think these sorts of changes and personal life experiences broaden a person's perspectives. I think he has the life experiences that help produce the wisdom to change his mind when the appropriate argument is made.
Actually, no, Google cited another case that found that speech is protected even if it is "motivated by hatred or ill will". See the footnote on page 10 of the google response: http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/files/Google_Sear chKing_Response.pdf
It seems to me that intent of the speech is not relevant.
Government certifications/licensure is NOT a gurantee of quality or integrity. The other fields with certifications you listed-- hair dressers and auto mechanics are good examples of what I'm talking about. How many people have been ripped off by auto mechanics? How many people have gotten a horrible hair cut at a hair dresser?
Additionally, I am not really sure that state certification of auto mechanics is required in all (any?) states... perhaps to do things like issue safety/emmissions permits, etc but not just to be able to work on a car.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.... depends on what you mean by "better benefits". If you mean health insurance, life insurance, etc ... my experience (from both sides of the fence) is that university people *think* they have great benefits but really they overpay in $ for what may be significantly less (or just average) coverage compared to the private sector.
On the other hand, if by benefits you mean leave/vacation and the more intangible benefits... definitely better leave policies and the intangibles are arguably better* (personal preference). Also, for people with families... there are often reduced or free tuition, etc for their dependents.
* my experience on one area of "intangibles", processes/efficiency, is that universities have more byzantine and opaque processes than private sector.
Actual article for the journal Cancer referred to by the OP's news site is here as a pdf:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.26625/pdf
Read it yourself-- not outlandish and makes a good case for the methodology used.
Also, I encourage you to look at other studies that are related as I think you might be interested. For example, the following says nothing about whether radiation in bite-wing x-rays is dangerous, rather it explores the question "what is the most effective technique for patient treatment" (my wording not theirs):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103270
Research is a good thing. Research applied is a very good thing. Results of research ignored because "this is how we do it" and "it's really not dangerous anyway you silly scardy cat" is a very sad and potentially dangerous thing. Note-- not directed at jd, this is just my observation (okay, frustration) of how it sometimes "is" in the real world.
My google home page did NOT have the text "remove google background"... it read "change google background". I clicked the link and there was not an option to remove the background... just change it(presumably one could have changed it to blank/white).
Sorry but that statement is not accurate... one example: I have to drive my family of 9 around... an SUV (Suburban) is quite practical for that purpose. In fact, few other vehicles could handle the task... A truck could not. A mini-van could not. Not many other choices today outside of a full-size van but the gas mileage on those is not better than an SUV (maybe even worse). I know I'm not the only one with requirements to transport more than a handful of people at a time.
We try hard to minimize trips (e.g. a rule of thumb is that we don't go into town for just one purpose).
Also the Suburban is not the regular commuter vehicle in our household either. When 3 or fewer of us need to go somewhere-- we use the 3 seat 4 cylinder vehicle instead.
Looking back over your post, I see that there are some other inaccuracies in your post as well... items a-d can certainly be accomplished with SUVs. Other items like pulling a harrow in a field, pulling up deep sunk fence posts, towing broken vehicles, etc can also be accomplished with a Suburban (I've done it with ease).
All that said, I like the Veggie Tale song "Sports Utility Vehicle" as there is truth in it (and it's funny)... "You and me in our sport utility vehicles crusin to Dunkin Donuts for a cup of steaming Joe. Oh you and me in our sport utility vehicles we'll slam into 4-wheel drive for a scoop of rocky road".
I do educate my children, but guess what... I put the steak knives up high where the little children have a hard time getting to them. Yes, they could use a chair to climb higher (and yes some of them have done so), but to simply throw up ones hands and say "there is a way to subvert this so it's useless" and just put the knives on the floor would be absurd.
Whether one is considering something like a bank vault or using parental controls, there are always residual risks to be dealt with with (that doesn't mean we just don't use those tools).
A DHCP request is not permission, any more than taking the key in my fake rock is permission to enter my house.
Hmmm... I think your fake rock analogy has some serious flaws unless your fake rock acts in the following or a similar manner:
Fake rock: Hey everybody I'm a fake rock, and my name is Rocky, and I've got a key to provide to a house!
Passer by: Hi Rocky, may I have the key you're advertising?
Fake rock: Certainly! Here's a key [fake rock somehow "hands" the key to passer by] and here are the directions to the door [this is similar to an AP that when offering an IP also provides a default gateway]
Basically, the difference is that an AP is *actively* soliciting it's service *and* it actively responds to requests. There are many reasonably accessible ways to configure an AP to act differently including not advertising is SSID, using WEP/WPA/etc, MAC filtering, or perhaps even simply NOT PROVIDING default gateway, DNS servers, etc.
Hold on now... no one proposed "hacking" anything so comparing it to "hack[ing] a satellite box" is absurd. The description of how the "hardware" (more than hardware actually) works is extremely relevant... in this case one item is advertising availability and another device says "hi here's who I am (mac address) may I have access?" and the first device responded "certainly, here is an IP address and other info (dns, etc)". IANAL, but that sure sounds like an agreement was made (as opposed to your stealing a bike example because no one *offered* a bicycle and no one *asked permission* to use it and no one *granted* such use).
Also, I suggest that many people intentionally leave their access points open as a form of hospitality, etc. One very public example is security expert Bruce Schneier http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html . So one does NOT need to assume that the person offering an open access point is "ignorant". Clearly the temporary use of the offered access is not ironclad "exploitation of ignorance".
Absurd or greedy use of an offered courtesy (e.g. downloading such massive amounts of data that cause degraded service to others or surcharges) is inappropriate and impolite but that does not automatically make something illegal. For example if cookies are offered for free I don't let my children take all or even a large portion of them; however I would be shocked if someone suggested that someone taking most or even all of the offered free cookies was a thief and should be prosecuted.
Also, your assertion about legal responsibility for what occurs through one's access point proving use of open access points to be illegal seems extremely questionable at best to me and most likely IMHO not relevant to whether or not use of an open access point is "theft" like stealing a bicycle.
While I agree that there are many similarities between the states in the U.S., I have to disagree that there no differences at all. A very timely example is a discussion I took part in just last night with an "Easterner" that had moved to my area (Southwest) a few years ago. We are both involved in the same small charitable organization (so there are some similarities there) and we have some similarities due to faith backgrounds as well. She remarked on how different the approach to getting things done was in this area and the culture of where she came from. She partly attributed her perspective and methods to being an "Easterner".
My work took me to an East Coast state for a few years and I definitely found significant differences there (some good some bad from my perspective).
There are also differences between adjoining states-- at least in the states I have lived in (both in the the Southwest and on the East Coast).
All that said, having a balance between federal and state rights is more than just "culture" differences between the states... I think having the division allows for the opportunity for individuals voices to be heard more clearly. I have a much better chance of speaking with state representatives and influencing legislation than I do at the federal level (although I have communicated with both state and local officials).
I suggest you consider how Mr. Huckabee changed his views on health care (including his own health problems and dramatic weight loss). While some might not see this as a big deal, I think these sorts of changes and personal life experiences broaden a person's perspectives. I think he has the life experiences that help produce the wisdom to change his mind when the appropriate argument is made.
Actually, no, Google cited another case that found that speech is protected even if it is "motivated by hatred or ill will". See the footnote on page 10 of the google response: http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/files/Google_Sear chKing_Response.pdf
It seems to me that intent of the speech is not relevant.
Government certifications/licensure is NOT a gurantee of quality or integrity. The other fields with certifications you listed-- hair dressers and auto mechanics are good examples of what I'm talking about. How many people have been ripped off by auto mechanics? How many people have gotten a horrible hair cut at a hair dresser?
Additionally, I am not really sure that state certification of auto mechanics is required in all (any?) states... perhaps to do things like issue safety/emmissions permits, etc but not just to be able to work on a car.