No, the lesson here is that the indoctrination of bullshit material to our young students often creates societal damage the echos on for generations to come.
Oh horseshit, stop letting the media brainwash you into believing that students are sponges waiting to absorb whatever they're told. I wrote plenty of papers to appease a professor, and none of it "indoctrinated" me into agreeing with an idea I considered flawed but bullshitted my way through anyway.
You give too little credit to student's ability to write out several pages of "research" and opinion without agreeing (or, hell, thinking more than 2 seconds about) with any of it. They're pros at it. Most college students could successfully out-bullshit a politician if they knew it would get them an A.
4. Politicization. "If you want an A in English Literature with Dr. Rosenberg, you'd better write about feminist theories of hermeneutics."
Actually, there's a valuable lesson to be learned from that situation. Specifically, at some point in your life you're going to have a boss who gives you a task you don't like and tells you to do it in a way you don't want to. Suck it up and do it well anyway.
Let's be honest here, saying all degree holders are overqualified is being generous. I see plenty of students graduate with college degrees who display less sense than a well educated high school student who strives to overachieve.
(which there is no such thing in the U.S. - there is one speed limit. PERIOD)
Wrong. Most states designate (by law) that the left lane is for passing only. Which means even if you have to speed to pass, that's the lawful thing to do.
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Tort reform is good, but it is only so good. Look at Texas: Doctors in Texas have been helped a lot by tort reform, but consumers are still getting royally fucked by the insurance companies. The solution to HC needs to encompass everyone, and tort reform alone does not do that.
Much as I would vilify Fox specifically for treating its viewer base like children who cannot comprehend intelligent debate, let's be fair here: All of the news organizations really screwed the pooch on this matter.
Anyone looking for intelligent discussion on Health Care gave up on the media a long time ago.
"If they don't understand the basics of, say, scientific theory, they aren't intellectually involved in the first place."
Isn't there a difference between "understand" and "agree with" or "subscribe to the same school of interpretation"?
I'm mostly arguing that many a lay person does not understand the processes and methods that define scientific theory.
So, for example, when I see a poll ask a person if a bunch of hacked emails disproves a scientific theory (in this case, climate science), I can only facepalm and sigh. If the research was problematic, it has to be disproven with further research...not misinterpreted comments that a bunch of scientists made in correspondence.
Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.
Healthy skepticism is good when the skeptic understands the underlying ideas that go into the subject matter. If they don't understand the basics of, say, scientific theory, they aren't intellectually involved in the first place. That's a relevant issue with many lay people.
What's with people marking it Offtopic? He's totally right about [insert President/Cable Company/Microsoft/news site/vi/emacs/etc]. Obviously people on/. are too [insert Conservative/Liberal/nerdy/stupid/n00b].
I'm not sure MS is a great example given that the majority of their divisions lose money every quarter. They subsidize most of their company on the profits of one or two divisions. That's not really market success in those areas.
Not sure what position I claimed, but to answer your question about social injustice in regards to the wealthy riding taxpayers: This is hardly a new situation (wealthy reaming taxpayers is an old school tradition); no amount of protesting has changed shit so far amongst the major players (competition just cannot compete in this market, and the gov't involvement is not going to change); and you might want to double check on how well, "tell them how to run the networks," has worked so far (hint: they've been screwing customers knowing that lawsuits are long, laborious processes that the average consumer cannot handle as well as big companies can).
I'm not really sure how 4 major communications players absorbing every local/smaller wireless provider (most of whom were probably already paying the bigger providers for access) is "exploding." Sounds more like the market's proving that you need to already be the entrenched, big player to survive.
Talk about a strong market surviving off of limited gov't intervention...
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, it seems Twain beat the movie industry at its own game. VHS->DVD->BluRay upconverts and "bonus content" releases? That's so 1900.
I suppose that would've been the better way to put it. Well said.
People still click on ads?
Walter in The Big Lebowski said it best: "Oh please, dear? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint."
No, the lesson here is that the indoctrination of bullshit material to our young students often creates societal damage the echos on for generations to come.
Oh horseshit, stop letting the media brainwash you into believing that students are sponges waiting to absorb whatever they're told. I wrote plenty of papers to appease a professor, and none of it "indoctrinated" me into agreeing with an idea I considered flawed but bullshitted my way through anyway.
You give too little credit to student's ability to write out several pages of "research" and opinion without agreeing (or, hell, thinking more than 2 seconds about) with any of it. They're pros at it. Most college students could successfully out-bullshit a politician if they knew it would get them an A.
4. Politicization. "If you want an A in English Literature with Dr. Rosenberg, you'd better write about feminist theories of hermeneutics."
Actually, there's a valuable lesson to be learned from that situation. Specifically, at some point in your life you're going to have a boss who gives you a task you don't like and tells you to do it in a way you don't want to. Suck it up and do it well anyway.
Let's be honest here, saying all degree holders are overqualified is being generous. I see plenty of students graduate with college degrees who display less sense than a well educated high school student who strives to overachieve.
Unless you can explain how the Internet isn't "communication by wire or radio".
"Series of tubes"
Oh c'mon, how often do giant alien robots really destroy entire sections of your city? Besides, isn't that hard to raze and rebuild, right?
(which there is no such thing in the U.S. - there is one speed limit. PERIOD)
Wrong. Most states designate (by law) that the left lane is for passing only. Which means even if you have to speed to pass, that's the lawful thing to do.
Tort reform is good, but it is only so good. Look at Texas: Doctors in Texas have been helped a lot by tort reform, but consumers are still getting royally fucked by the insurance companies. The solution to HC needs to encompass everyone, and tort reform alone does not do that.
Much as I would vilify Fox specifically for treating its viewer base like children who cannot comprehend intelligent debate, let's be fair here: All of the news organizations really screwed the pooch on this matter.
Anyone looking for intelligent discussion on Health Care gave up on the media a long time ago.
Have it your way Dude.
Do ya have to use so many cuss words?
I have an ngage you insensitive clod!
How does it do as a paperweight?
"If they don't understand the basics of, say, scientific theory, they aren't intellectually involved in the first place."
Isn't there a difference between "understand" and "agree with" or "subscribe to the same school of interpretation"?
I'm mostly arguing that many a lay person does not understand the processes and methods that define scientific theory.
So, for example, when I see a poll ask a person if a bunch of hacked emails disproves a scientific theory (in this case, climate science), I can only facepalm and sigh. If the research was problematic, it has to be disproven with further research...not misinterpreted comments that a bunch of scientists made in correspondence.
Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.
Healthy skepticism is good when the skeptic understands the underlying ideas that go into the subject matter. If they don't understand the basics of, say, scientific theory, they aren't intellectually involved in the first place. That's a relevant issue with many lay people.
What's with people marking it Offtopic? He's totally right about [insert President/Cable Company/Microsoft/news site/vi/emacs/etc]. Obviously people on /. are too [insert Conservative/Liberal/nerdy/stupid/n00b].
Owning a sports team isn't enough business activity?
After all, they like to brag about having the most viewers. I think that makes them pretty damn mainstream.
(Lying to themselves that they are not MSM doesn't mean jack.)
I'm not sure MS is a great example given that the majority of their divisions lose money every quarter. They subsidize most of their company on the profits of one or two divisions. That's not really market success in those areas.
Not sure what position I claimed, but to answer your question about social injustice in regards to the wealthy riding taxpayers: This is hardly a new situation (wealthy reaming taxpayers is an old school tradition); no amount of protesting has changed shit so far amongst the major players (competition just cannot compete in this market, and the gov't involvement is not going to change); and you might want to double check on how well, "tell them how to run the networks," has worked so far (hint: they've been screwing customers knowing that lawsuits are long, laborious processes that the average consumer cannot handle as well as big companies can).
I'm not really sure how 4 major communications players absorbing every local/smaller wireless provider (most of whom were probably already paying the bigger providers for access) is "exploding." Sounds more like the market's proving that you need to already be the entrenched, big player to survive.
Talk about a strong market surviving off of limited gov't intervention...
how can you be a libertarian and be in favor of regulating private networks?
How can you reasonably call them private networks? They had plenty of public assistance/intervention to get them built.
Actually, this sounds more like a "How can we troll the Conservative media just to tick them off a little more."