but only when it is meritocracy based. discrimination is such a catch-all cop out nowadays, that it is only natural for the untalented to reach for it as their first resort.
How? Through what physical means? Feelings of others are aggregate results of synapses firing in their brains. In what physical way do they make synapses fire in your brain? ESP?
between data and information. Information is data which reduces confusion. Data can actually carry negative information value if it increases confusion. Any data which is highly informative survives. And just because money was spent to obtain it, doesn't mean it was fruitful. Research is, almost by definition, a walk in the dark. It attempts to reduce confusion. And, as such, is bound to have misses more often than hits.
Because the only right that the piece of paper the stock is printed on allows you to have is voting. And you get to vote regardless of whether you own the stock or your charity does. But "donating" to charity creates a tax write off.
And you get to fly in your Foundation's aircraft...
That's actually not as important. Stock is a piece of paper. The only paper which is worth money is the paper which entitles one to some legal rights. Bonds give you a legal right to collect debt. Why are stocks worth money? If you think you own part of the company, try to walk through it's front door to examine your property. An owner doesn't have to make an appointment to walk in. So what rights do come with stock ownership? Dividends are not rights. They are not mandatory. So you are not entitled to them... not a right. The only right that a stock gives you is the right to vote for the top management of the company. Why do people pay so much for that right? Disregarding the speculators hoping to sell to the greater fool, they pay for it because the management, in fear of getting fired, used to pay shareholders dividends so that they would keep voting for them. Stocks costing money is just a throwback to that era. Without that, the right to vote for IBM's management? Who the hell wants to pay for that? But if Zuckerberg gets to have a 1 billion tax right off (conveniently at the same time he sold 1 billion of his own shares) and still control the voting rights of the "donated" shares, then he literally gets to eat his cake and have it, too. The 2nd billion shares (the donated ones) don't lose him any voting rights and at the same time do give him the tax write off. Even if they are voted through an escrow, it's still his patsy escrow.
I'll take it out on you even though you probably don't merit it. But the times do. Empathy is a physical impossibility. "Compassion" is the word you are looking for. Empathy is feeling the feelings experienced by another human beings. You can understand feelings of others, you can experience compassion for the feelings of others (commiserate). But you can't actually physically feel the feelings of others. Unless you are into mysticism. But I don't think most people who use that word are trying to use it in a spiritual sense.
You DO realize money is just a convenient form of energy
I used to hold that view. But it's completely shattered by supply/demand dynamic. Money is a token for enumerating exchange. It's there to make voluntary cooperation precise. Prices go up during times of shortages because value (ie, usefulness) of goods goes up. Prices go down in the conditions of oversupply because value (ie, usefulness) goes down. The only time this dynamic breaks is when the exchange becomes less than voluntary. If someone puts a gun to you head, you might sell things at his price rather than at what your view of the correct price is. If someone can legally print money, they can make one area of the economy over inflated and worth more by making sure that the money they print is only spent in that area. But then the enumerative character of the token is broken (ie, it's a false count).
Better question : of his own shares? Or of the company-held shares. Because if they are company-held shares, I'd love to know how that benefits the other shareholders (ie, the owners of the company).
Are we gonna have to suffer every commentator struggling to mispronounce Krasnaya Polyana instead of using the most obvious straight-forward translation "red valley"?
Definitely not. You should definitely be free to offend anyone. Only speech which should lead to punitive actions is speech which is a call to action. If you call for lynching of all blacks, you should be arrested for inciting murder. If you say lynchings are funny, you should be labeled an idiot, but you should definitely NOT be arrested. Unfortunately, the summary does not mention whether the tweets were antisemitic calls for committing crimes or just offensive.
Well, if the fed govt can't attach conditions to the arts funding, why should it be able to attach conditions to states continuing to receive medicaid grants. If that money is already apportioned for medical spending, then taking it away would be tantamount to threatening to bankrupt state government if they don't "volunteer" for a new federal program.
Because administrators by and large are politically conservative
That is suuuuuch a nonsense. Most administrators are former educators. And if some of them not rabid left wingers, that does not automatically make them right wingers. They have to remain level headed and balance priorities within the restrictions within which they operate. That doesn't mean they are out to promote some right-wing agenda. This is such nonsense that I am not even sure this reply was worth making.
It protects you from getting fired for speaking your mind on an issue in your area of specialty.
No, it really doesn't. It was conceived that way, perhaps. But it doesn't serve that function at all in the current system. If what you are saying were true, almost every single professor would have to be tenured. But it's not what tenure is. It's entirely a job-contract status.
This is generally done by the same people who use the term "elites" derisively. There's a culture - often promulgated by Libertarians
C'mon. Really? I'll be generous and assume that you have defended your findings against those who don't understand them too much to make a distinction between them and those who challenge standing on legitimate grounds. But you are unquestionably defending yourself against an attack which hasn't been made in this case.
The fact is, someone who has made significant contributions to their field deserves some job security.
Maybe they do and maybe they don't. But tenure in research (rather than in teaching) exists for the purposes of protecting the scientific inquiry as a process. It doesn't exist (even if it has come to be viewed as existing) for the purposes of rewarding those who advance that process.
It's not that these naysayers have a better system for who deserves tenure
naysayers? Really?? I don't know how to rationally defend against slurs. Nor do I feel like trying.
They don't want anyone to have such protections
What protections? It is the nature of the protection itself that is being discussed rather than who is deserving of it and who is not.
but what system involving human pecking order is
So you do agree that it is a pecking order rather than a protection of the truth-finding process. Welcome to the club.
And the fact is, the attack on professors, tenure, and the scientific elites in general is mostly coming from the corners that are trying to tear down science as an edifice in general.
Nonsense. Pure unadulterated nonsense. It is not an attack on professors. It is not an attack at all. It is an attempt to see what would create a better system for protecting scientific inquiry. You attempt to claim that is only needs to be protected from those outside of the scientific community. And you fail to recognize that it also needs to be protected from the weakness of human nature inside of the community. Orthodoxy is the problem that is being challenged -- not elitism.
If you challenge consensus, you challenge social standing of those who established it. You challenge their station in life. Some may ignore it, but some may attempt to preserve that station by denying new researchers access. Unable to get a job, a new brilliant researcher would be forced to leave the field. The academic freedom is there to protect those who are disliked for the results of their findings.
Sports model is equally inflammatory. The idea of academic freedom being available only to those who have already made their most significant contribution (and therefore get tenure which is supposed to provide academic freedom) is an idea that needs to be discussed. It is a problem.
BTW, taxes are not unique to democracies. And those who vote for the losing guy still have to pay taxes. The point stands. Taxes are not paid voluntarily. They are not charity. They are paid under the threat of force. Ie, under a gunpoint.
No you appoint the people who set your taxes. But that's not the only criteria you use in making that appointment. The degree of control that you are trying to suggest is exercised in that vote is much smaller than you suggest. Corporations don't vote (but do pay taxes). Resident aliens don't vote, but do pay taxes. Felons don't vote, but do pay taxes. Anyone voting based on any issue other than taxes, doesn't chose their tax policy, but does pay taxes. Election is an act of delegation of authority. It is not an act of choosing policy.
If the private industry is not doing, the government can step in. If the private industry is already doing, the government should bud out. That's the argument. Unless you think the private industry already has a national highway system or a private army, those are government functions. Creating logistics software when there are already so many private companies doing that is not a government function.
No, the President doesn't do every federal job himself. He hires people who hire people, etc. The government at large doesn't do every job itself. It hires people. But the task which it hires people (or companies) to accomplish is either not doable by the private industry. Or it is doable by the private industry. If this task is already done by the private industry, then why the hell should the government try to compete by doing the same thing? It's already done. Why does the government need to get into this business to do it, too? People who think like this are nuts if not downright criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
but only when it is meritocracy based. discrimination is such a catch-all cop out nowadays, that it is only natural for the untalented to reach for it as their first resort.
How? Through what physical means? Feelings of others are aggregate results of synapses firing in their brains. In what physical way do they make synapses fire in your brain? ESP?
between data and information. Information is data which reduces confusion. Data can actually carry negative information value if it increases confusion. Any data which is highly informative survives. And just because money was spent to obtain it, doesn't mean it was fruitful. Research is, almost by definition, a walk in the dark. It attempts to reduce confusion. And, as such, is bound to have misses more often than hits.
How is giving stock avoiding taxes?
Because the only right that the piece of paper the stock is printed on allows you to have is voting. And you get to vote regardless of whether you own the stock or your charity does. But "donating" to charity creates a tax write off.
That's just not how it works. Congress makes laws, but the rules interpreting them are made by the IRS.
And you get to fly in your Foundation's aircraft...
That's actually not as important. Stock is a piece of paper. The only paper which is worth money is the paper which entitles one to some legal rights. Bonds give you a legal right to collect debt. Why are stocks worth money? If you think you own part of the company, try to walk through it's front door to examine your property. An owner doesn't have to make an appointment to walk in. So what rights do come with stock ownership? Dividends are not rights. They are not mandatory. So you are not entitled to them... not a right. The only right that a stock gives you is the right to vote for the top management of the company. Why do people pay so much for that right? Disregarding the speculators hoping to sell to the greater fool, they pay for it because the management, in fear of getting fired, used to pay shareholders dividends so that they would keep voting for them. Stocks costing money is just a throwback to that era. Without that, the right to vote for IBM's management? Who the hell wants to pay for that? But if Zuckerberg gets to have a 1 billion tax right off (conveniently at the same time he sold 1 billion of his own shares) and still control the voting rights of the "donated" shares, then he literally gets to eat his cake and have it, too. The 2nd billion shares (the donated ones) don't lose him any voting rights and at the same time do give him the tax write off. Even if they are voted through an escrow, it's still his patsy escrow.
empathise
I'll take it out on you even though you probably don't merit it. But the times do. Empathy is a physical impossibility. "Compassion" is the word you are looking for. Empathy is feeling the feelings experienced by another human beings. You can understand feelings of others, you can experience compassion for the feelings of others (commiserate). But you can't actually physically feel the feelings of others. Unless you are into mysticism. But I don't think most people who use that word are trying to use it in a spiritual sense.
You DO realize money is just a convenient form of energy
I used to hold that view. But it's completely shattered by supply/demand dynamic. Money is a token for enumerating exchange. It's there to make voluntary cooperation precise. Prices go up during times of shortages because value (ie, usefulness) of goods goes up. Prices go down in the conditions of oversupply because value (ie, usefulness) goes down. The only time this dynamic breaks is when the exchange becomes less than voluntary. If someone puts a gun to you head, you might sell things at his price rather than at what your view of the correct price is. If someone can legally print money, they can make one area of the economy over inflated and worth more by making sure that the money they print is only spent in that area. But then the enumerative character of the token is broken (ie, it's a false count).
Better question : of his own shares? Or of the company-held shares. Because if they are company-held shares, I'd love to know how that benefits the other shareholders (ie, the owners of the company).
Are we gonna have to suffer every commentator struggling to mispronounce Krasnaya Polyana instead of using the most obvious straight-forward translation "red valley"?
Definitely not. You should definitely be free to offend anyone. Only speech which should lead to punitive actions is speech which is a call to action. If you call for lynching of all blacks, you should be arrested for inciting murder. If you say lynchings are funny, you should be labeled an idiot, but you should definitely NOT be arrested. Unfortunately, the summary does not mention whether the tweets were antisemitic calls for committing crimes or just offensive.
ponder that for a while
Well, if the fed govt can't attach conditions to the arts funding, why should it be able to attach conditions to states continuing to receive medicaid grants. If that money is already apportioned for medical spending, then taking it away would be tantamount to threatening to bankrupt state government if they don't "volunteer" for a new federal program.
While the straw that broke the camel's back is the website malfunction, yes it does.
Because administrators by and large are politically conservative
That is suuuuuch a nonsense. Most administrators are former educators. And if some of them not rabid left wingers, that does not automatically make them right wingers. They have to remain level headed and balance priorities within the restrictions within which they operate. That doesn't mean they are out to promote some right-wing agenda. This is such nonsense that I am not even sure this reply was worth making.
It protects you from getting fired for speaking your mind on an issue in your area of specialty.
No, it really doesn't. It was conceived that way, perhaps. But it doesn't serve that function at all in the current system. If what you are saying were true, almost every single professor would have to be tenured. But it's not what tenure is. It's entirely a job-contract status.
This is generally done by the same people who use the term "elites" derisively. There's a culture - often promulgated by Libertarians
C'mon. Really? I'll be generous and assume that you have defended your findings against those who don't understand them too much to make a distinction between them and those who challenge standing on legitimate grounds. But you are unquestionably defending yourself against an attack which hasn't been made in this case.
The fact is, someone who has made significant contributions to their field deserves some job security.
Maybe they do and maybe they don't. But tenure in research (rather than in teaching) exists for the purposes of protecting the scientific inquiry as a process. It doesn't exist (even if it has come to be viewed as existing) for the purposes of rewarding those who advance that process.
It's not that these naysayers have a better system for who deserves tenure
naysayers? Really?? I don't know how to rationally defend against slurs. Nor do I feel like trying.
They don't want anyone to have such protections
What protections? It is the nature of the protection itself that is being discussed rather than who is deserving of it and who is not.
but what system involving human pecking order is
So you do agree that it is a pecking order rather than a protection of the truth-finding process. Welcome to the club.
And the fact is, the attack on professors, tenure, and the scientific elites in general is mostly coming from the corners that are trying to tear down science as an edifice in general.
Nonsense. Pure unadulterated nonsense. It is not an attack on professors. It is not an attack at all. It is an attempt to see what would create a better system for protecting scientific inquiry. You attempt to claim that is only needs to be protected from those outside of the scientific community. And you fail to recognize that it also needs to be protected from the weakness of human nature inside of the community. Orthodoxy is the problem that is being challenged -- not elitism.
If you challenge consensus, you challenge social standing of those who established it. You challenge their station in life. Some may ignore it, but some may attempt to preserve that station by denying new researchers access. Unable to get a job, a new brilliant researcher would be forced to leave the field. The academic freedom is there to protect those who are disliked for the results of their findings.
Universities are a business, their product is teaching students, and carrying out research, which pays for staff.
And building statues. "Donated in loving memory of..." pays for a lot of higher education in the US.
I'd say that being on food stamps after earning a PhD is a fall pretty far down... As far as death? Just about.
Sports model is equally inflammatory. The idea of academic freedom being available only to those who have already made their most significant contribution (and therefore get tenure which is supposed to provide academic freedom) is an idea that needs to be discussed. It is a problem.
BTW, taxes are not unique to democracies. And those who vote for the losing guy still have to pay taxes. The point stands. Taxes are not paid voluntarily. They are not charity. They are paid under the threat of force. Ie, under a gunpoint.
No you appoint the people who set your taxes. But that's not the only criteria you use in making that appointment. The degree of control that you are trying to suggest is exercised in that vote is much smaller than you suggest. Corporations don't vote (but do pay taxes). Resident aliens don't vote, but do pay taxes. Felons don't vote, but do pay taxes. Anyone voting based on any issue other than taxes, doesn't chose their tax policy, but does pay taxes. Election is an act of delegation of authority. It is not an act of choosing policy.
Take money away from honest citizens at gun point
Your view of taxation?
Unless you believe that taxes are paid voluntarily the same way that charitable donations are made, it's your view of the taxes, too.
If the private industry is not doing, the government can step in. If the private industry is already doing, the government should bud out. That's the argument. Unless you think the private industry already has a national highway system or a private army, those are government functions. Creating logistics software when there are already so many private companies doing that is not a government function.
No, the President doesn't do every federal job himself. He hires people who hire people, etc. The government at large doesn't do every job itself. It hires people. But the task which it hires people (or companies) to accomplish is either not doable by the private industry. Or it is doable by the private industry. If this task is already done by the private industry, then why the hell should the government try to compete by doing the same thing? It's already done. Why does the government need to get into this business to do it, too? People who think like this are nuts if not downright criminal.