to not read the article, jump in with their personal bias as comments, and miss the interesting points that are made. Though I disagree with the idea that music is being "destroyed" there is some validity to the change in the communication and connection between people. The internet allows us to communicate with many more people, but we do not make the same interpersonal connections that physical proximity promotes. The change in how people relate is what will change music and art.
Engineering, however, trains you for specific tasks and specific jobs
I see the main component that defines engineering is training (~20%) of applied problem solving. It really isn't training for a specific job, as there are a huge variety of jobs within any engineering field. It's the development of those problem solving skills that make engineers more ready to work in industry right out of the gate. Although Arts & Science do not directly train such skills, often people in those areas will have developed them to a lesser degree as a means to be successful.
But learning CAD is, I'd say, not something that belongs in a traditional liberal arts degree anyway
CAD isn't something that belongs in many engineering disciplines, but it is often a skill picked up as part of working on projects.
It's a specific skill that an artist uses for specific tasks, but is not something you'd learn while studying the classic masterpieces or art history.
Studying classic masterpieces is only one aspect of the arts, just as vector calculus is only one aspect of engineering (with arguably similar applicability to real world problems). As I mentioned before most of engineering is the same pure theory. Most of the skills people develop to be successful are done on their own, not as part of a structured degree program.
DRM scales. One guy in russia breaks it. His friend from Korea writes a nice GUI crack. A guy from spain posts it on the Internet. Two days later, everyone who even cares a little has a copy. The ability to open the "lock" doesn't remain with a skilled minority.
There are easily purchased lockpick kits and downloadable instructions; remember using a bic pen to pick U-locks. I would say the difference tends to be more social than anything else.
Moving into upper management isn't about WHAT you know, it's about WHO you know.
Moving into ANY position is like that. And I would argue the wording is backwards, it's not about WHO you know, its what others know about you. While there is a small degree of nepotism & cronyism, for the most part hires based on "who you know" are made because the person knows you have the skills to be at least adequate along with the fact that there would not be issues with social conflict. As for asskissing/bullshitting those are in fact good ways of limiting your network. Sure that one manager might like you, but you will isolate yourself from the rest of your colleagues and you can possibly miss out on other non-vertical promotion opportunities.
It's considered as important to know what Hofstadter and Turner think as what Adams and Jackson did. In my opinion, this is a scandalous state of affairs, equivalent to a college course in navel-gazing.
In my opinion this is what you should be learning in college. What Adams & Jackson did is a matter of record with no real insight; historical analysis is to try to understand why they did it. The difference similar to learning that when you drop a ball it falls at 9.8m/s^2 (a matter of record) and studying the various theories of gravity (a matter of analysis).
So what you're saying is the arts major who is successful at Jeopardy will perish while the engineer analytically decides and implements the best method of survival? I'm glad my degree was money well spent.
The linage of the arts major who gets drunk and knocks up a few girls survives, while that of the engineer who has never gone on a date will perish.
Yea, let the lower income students, who can't afford to go to college to be an engineer, scientist, or doctor, remain surfs for those who's parents are wealthy.
On the flip side, I guess that art & culture should be only reserved for the rich. The problem is that lower income students can't afford to go to college at all.
Because a large central government is obviously the best choice to decide the make-up of the labor force.
Governments do all sorts of things to encourage or discourage certain things. Tax breaks for home mortgages to encourage home ownership, taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking, why not add cheaper tuition for those that major in areas of study that are more useful to society than others?
The free market already does this with starting salaries post graduation. Once you get government involved things become much more political. For example the Bush administration may feel like we need more chemical engineers (to support the oil industries) and fewer biologists (those evolution thinking type folks)
Why do you look down on people choosing their major based on price(no one said based on price alone), do you also look down on people choosing a university based on price?
Unless there is an enormous difference between prices (as is the case with choosing a university), then somebody who chooses a major because it is cheaper is most likely not passionate about the subject.
If a kid has an interest in teaching and in something else, but cant decide, perhaps the free tuition would net one extra teacher.
Unfortunately the quality and motivation of the teacher is in doubt. Many resources will be wasted training "teachers" who really are kids just wanting to get a degree with no long term teaching plans.
Engineers have artistic leanings, artists have engineering leanings.
Then we are in agreement, art & engineering are not mutually exclusive.
So what would you have to say to an engineer who can paint and draw? Presumably your head would explode from the paradox of an artistic engineer!
Then presumably your head would explode from the paradox of an artist with "nothing tangible that you can use for any particular job" who knows programming/CAD.
Pricing for degrees should be based on how much society needs that degree holder
Defined by whom?
Since scientists are very useful to society their degrees should be as low cost as possible to encourage as many as possible to take that degree.
I think engineers are more important than scientists, then again there may be those who feel that business majors are more important than engineers.
Majors like english(non teaching) should be very expensive since they arent very useful to society as a whole and should be discouraged as much as possible.
So we should price people out of what they want to encourage them to do something we want? As for usefulness that is something that is hard to define. How many scientists may have been inspired by a piece of literature?
Students wanting to get a teaching degree should probably have free tuition, since not only are teachers necessary but they are a direct positive feedback into the education system, so increasing the number of teachers could have exponential increases in public welfare 20 years from now
So we improve the quality of teaching by encouraging the most aimless university students to pursue it (who else would choose a major based on price)?
When you graduate you have nothing tangible that you can use for any particular job but are expected to be intelligent enough to succeed at something if you work hard.
Yes, art is worthless. Understanding art gives insights into understanding people, which can be useful in many business environments. An artist is better equipped to decide what makes a good interface or design for end users than an engineer. I agree that engineers are better equipped in general, because they are tasked with being problem solvers... an artist however, can be helpful in telling you the difference between a solution, and an elegant solution.
This is quite the wrong way around... if there is a price difference it should favour the graduates that we need. In the UK that means more Medics, more engineers & scientists - so charge these students less.
So flood the market with lesser qualified people to drive wages down? If a student is choosing a major based on a difference of $50 a credit, you probably don't want them in those needed categories.
US hasn't adopted Protocol I, therefore "terrorist" prisoners do not gain POW status Under the Third Geneva Convention a fighter or belligerent in an international armed conflict who wanted lawful combatant status (and therefore prisoner of war status if captured), would have to meet certain criteria including:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)
What you are describing is Keynesian Economics. To my knowledge (IANAEconomist), the Keynesian theory has no explanation for the Panamanian economy.
It also doesn't describe the stagflation of the US economy in the 70's, that doesn't mean there are not important insights given by the theory.
Panama has had long periods of very low inflation, and even some deflationary periods. Yet, the Panamanian economy kept ticking right along. Panama has the highest GDP per capita of any Central American country, and yet their inflation rate has been consistently lower than in the U.S.
It's really an apples-oranges comparison; like wondering why the US needs a military when Costa Rica doesn't. Panama is service oriented therefore economic issues with the devaluation of goods in a deflationary economy are reduced. Much of the wealth of the country comes from international sources (Panama Canal, banking, etc), so the primary economic engines are not internal. Also, Panama has one of the greatest disparities of income in the world and an extremely high poverty rate; so while a Panamanian economic model works well for the banking industry and the wealthy, it does not necessarily translate into economic health for much of the population.
So untrue. Deflation is fine -- if you sit on your money, it doesn't become worthless. But this also gives you reason to invest properly and wisely, to get a better return than just what the deflation offers
Which is bad because it increases the economic risk of any investment, at the same time it becomes a disincentive for consumers. You basically doom the economy to stagnation and increased unemployment. One of the key problems that triggered the great depression after the crash was that the money supply was tightened. The 1930's were a period of deflation in the US, and economic recovery didn't occur until the 1940's a period of inflation spurred by massive government spending.
Inflation is the worst thing about economic stability ever. It has destroyed empires for thousands of years.
A low rate of inflation is a natural symptom of prosperity, more people have more money and thus prices rise.
In a slow deflation market, the poor are helped the most -- they can actually save, in hopes of investing in themselves in the future. The poor can't do that today.
The poor are most hurt by deflation. They are the class that is forced to spend a greater percentage of their earnings on day-to-day living. There will also be increased unemployment as there is less for the rich to invest/purchase.
You tell me how the American economy is doing any better than Japan or any country in Europe. Even Greece is doing better than the U.S. in terms of economic growth. We are a declining economic superpower.
Japan had experienced extended recessions since the 1990s and has a debt-GDP ratio of 150%. Parts of Europe like Greece are booming, but other countries such as France and Germany have had moderate growth similar to the US.
What I should have said in the grandparent post was that a billionaire playing slots that had a payout of 98% would inevitably lose money if he played long enough. This was as opposed to the comment that claimed that a "bigger bankroll" could somehow be used to improve the probability of winning
The bigger bankroll helps you win as it dictates how much statistical deviation you can absorb to the negative.
That would not work of course, if you took a group of 2000 machines with a 102% payout, and removed them from the casino after 5 months (or whatever arbitrary time that is before the machine achieves its theoretical results), some machines will have paid out more than 102%, while other will have paid out less. Overall, the aggregate amount that the machines underpaid would probably be very close to that which was overpaid.
That's where it depends on how the machines are setup. For example a 100% machine with a Jackpot of $1M on a quarters machine will have a 1:4M odds. If only a total of 25k games are played on the machine then statistically the machine should not have reached the 100% payout. Even with 10 machines, the likelihood is that over the course of the 250k games none will have paid out the $1M. Also, Casinos will often purchase insurance to mitigate risk exposure on jackpots.
By your logic, a billionaire playing a slot that gives 98% payout would eventually come out ahead.
Depending on how the game is setup, the billionare could at some point be ahead. If it's quarter slots no, if it's $1M a pull, possibly. That statistics work in the long run, and often the games are setup so the machines will be retired before they achieve their theoretical payout.
Streaks are irrelevant from the casino point of view, each game is independant that one player goes broke and hence stops playing due to a bad streak doesn't matter because another player will step up to play the machine anyway.
The payout % is intended to be misleading, as it merely represents the theoretical payout of the machine. Machines have a finite lifespan, so there is deviation from the theoretical payout %.
Basically, it means figuring out the ratio of payouts to losses that defines the optimal rate to pick a slot-machine player's pocket. Pay out too much and obviously the slot-machine owner will lose. Pay out too little and people begin to feel like suckers and stop playing. Get it just right -- super happy profit!
It's even more complex than that, designers need to understand HOW best to make individual payouts to maximize profits. Make the payouts too big and people will become disinterested from losing too much, make the payouts too small and the game will be ignored because there is not chance to "hit the big one." With the right mix a slot machine can net money even when the customer has the advantage. For example you could have a machine with 102% payout, yet it will net the slot machine owner money because the house has the advantage of deeper pockets to take advantage of streaks. People will keep playing their winnings until they are out of cash or up by "enough;" A player may be hot and up 50% at one point, but because it isn't enough for them to feel like they beat the house, they keep playing until they run into a cold streak and run out of cash.
To be a little more fair, and at risk of resurrecting the "conspiracy theorist" ranting ACs, the educational system here in America specifically teaches them to become a part of the system of growth for its own sake. Economics in the US is not a study of how financial systems are used--it is only a study of how they operate
The same thing applies for science, math, and any other field of study. The most important thing is to understand the system, otherwise you will have no starting place to understand the consequences of how those systems are used (both for good & evil).
The main financial controllers, and these are the people that operate with holdings on the international and multi-trillion dollar level, explicitly do not want people to understand how the financial systems are being used because they, the international financiers, are making a darn good living on the system of growth for its own sake
Growth is essential to support a growing populace.
When one looks back across history this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Nor have these things happened sporadically. These events are specifically planned--like keeping a tool in the toolbox--to be used opportunistically as strings to control heads of state, heads of banks, heads of international organizations, who in turn control hundreds, if not thousands or tens or thousands, of people beneath them simply by throttling their financial stream.
How far back in history, aristocratic families rise and fall, is that all part of the grand plan? I would attribute the cycle of such historic events to how humans act, rather than some pre-planned grand conspiracy over the centuries. We all want to believe every bad thing is just the result of one "bad guy," rather than face the reality of how complex the world really is. That's not to say there aren't those who have great influence on events, just that nobody really is in control.
Slashdot Mirror
to not read the article, jump in with their personal bias as comments, and miss the interesting points that are made.
Though I disagree with the idea that music is being "destroyed" there is some validity to the change in the communication and connection between people. The internet allows us to communicate with many more people, but we do not make the same interpersonal connections that physical proximity promotes. The change in how people relate is what will change music and art.
CAD isn't something that belongs in many engineering disciplines, but it is often a skill picked up as part of working on projects.
Studying classic masterpieces is only one aspect of the arts, just as vector calculus is only one aspect of engineering (with arguably similar applicability to real world problems). As I mentioned before most of engineering is the same pure theory. Most of the skills people develop to be successful are done on their own, not as part of a structured degree program.
As for asskissing/bullshitting those are in fact good ways of limiting your network. Sure that one manager might like you, but you will isolate yourself from the rest of your colleagues and you can possibly miss out on other non-vertical promotion opportunities.
Step 1: Delete the music
Step 2: Move on with life
Moral dilema solved
The problem is that lower income students can't afford to go to college at all.
The free market already does this with starting salaries post graduation. Once you get government involved things become much more political. For example the Bush administration may feel like we need more chemical engineers (to support the oil industries) and fewer biologists (those evolution thinking type folks)
Unless there is an enormous difference between prices (as is the case with choosing a university), then somebody who chooses a major because it is cheaper is most likely not passionate about the subject.
Unfortunately the quality and motivation of the teacher is in doubt. Many resources will be wasted training "teachers" who really are kids just wanting to get a degree with no long term teaching plans.
Then presumably your head would explode from the paradox of an artist with "nothing tangible that you can use for any particular job" who knows programming/CAD.
I think engineers are more important than scientists, then again there may be those who feel that business majors are more important than engineers.
So we should price people out of what they want to encourage them to do something we want? As for usefulness that is something that is hard to define. How many scientists may have been inspired by a piece of literature?
So we improve the quality of teaching by encouraging the most aimless university students to pursue it (who else would choose a major based on price)?
I agree that engineers are better equipped in general, because they are tasked with being problem solvers... an artist however, can be helpful in telling you the difference between a solution, and an elegant solution.
If a student is choosing a major based on a difference of $50 a credit, you probably don't want them in those needed categories.
Under the Third Geneva Convention a fighter or belligerent in an international armed conflict who wanted lawful combatant status (and therefore prisoner of war status if captured), would have to meet certain criteria including:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)
Not saying it's right, just that it's legal
It's really an apples-oranges comparison; like wondering why the US needs a military when Costa Rica doesn't.
Panama is service oriented therefore economic issues with the devaluation of goods in a deflationary economy are reduced. Much of the wealth of the country comes from international sources (Panama Canal, banking, etc), so the primary economic engines are not internal. Also, Panama has one of the greatest disparities of income in the world and an extremely high poverty rate; so while a Panamanian economic model works well for the banking industry and the wealthy, it does not necessarily translate into economic health for much of the population.
A low rate of inflation is a natural symptom of prosperity, more people have more money and thus prices rise.
The poor are most hurt by deflation. They are the class that is forced to spend a greater percentage of their earnings on day-to-day living. There will also be increased unemployment as there is less for the rich to invest/purchase.
That's where it depends on how the machines are setup. For example a 100% machine with a Jackpot of $1M on a quarters machine will have a 1:4M odds. If only a total of 25k games are played on the machine then statistically the machine should not have reached the 100% payout. Even with 10 machines, the likelihood is that over the course of the 250k games none will have paid out the $1M.
Also, Casinos will often purchase insurance to mitigate risk exposure on jackpots.
Growth is essential to support a growing populace.
How far back in history, aristocratic families rise and fall, is that all part of the grand plan? I would attribute the cycle of such historic events to how humans act, rather than some pre-planned grand conspiracy over the centuries. We all want to believe every bad thing is just the result of one "bad guy," rather than face the reality of how complex the world really is. That's not to say there aren't those who have great influence on events, just that nobody really is in control.