I think you are missing the point. We are not talking about judging the schools by how many students they graduate from their school, we are talking about using (as one factor) how many students out of their school graduate from the next level to judge the school.
You see in the current system, if Sally graduates from Jefferson High and gets in college, Jefferson High gets the same mark regardless of what happens to her after then. But if we are keeping track of how alumni are doing at the university level, we can see whether or not Sally learned enough in high school to do well in college.
"It won't be the exact same. It will be slightly different. I think "small effort" also implies a "small change"."
Global warming either occurs or it doesn't. There is no theory of global lukewarming.
"It won't neccessarily ruin the economy."
And where did you get your degree in economics?
"Since there will be fines on corporations for bad environmental practices..."
Are you for some reason under the impression that such fines do not already occur? Believe it or not, big evil corporations do try to engage in environmentally clean behavior.
"This means that the jobs lost from the Kyoto agreement could come back in the form of environmental research jobs"
They might hire a few more people to deal with that problem, unlikely but possible, but the increase in taxes to pay off the Russians because they used to be a big polluter combined with the halt of development that could potentially increase pollution would kill off many more jobs than would be brought should your little theory work.
No it doesn't, as they did not study other possible explanations. RTFA.
A much more accurate parallel with your cancer analogy (which is no where even close to being accurate, I hope you are not about to take the SATs) is saying John got cancer. We have shown that John was exposed to some substance that is thought to be a carcinogen (lets say tobacco), thus a possible explanation for John's cancer is that carcinogen.
"BUT first of all, a small effort is better than no effort."
Why, if both have the exact same outcome? Are you hoping that if we try really hard we will get a gold star for effort?
"And this really might make it easier to get more effective programs under way."
No, because by effectively ruining the economy it will only ruin any chance we will be able to develop new technologies that will actually do something to help the problem.
These are things real policy makers weigh when determining whether or not to accept things like Kyoto.
"Human activity to blame" != "Human activity can be blamed". The study does not prove human activity was the culprit (in fact they say it is possible it was not), but merely offers an explanation in which human activity was the cause.
It didn't even mention that this was from a study, or that it was trying to predict the future. From what you could tell from the title, it sounded like some imminent event is about to happen that will wipe out all these jobs.
The headline says "Half of US IT Operations Jobs to Vanish". What does that sound like? Some event is about to happen that will wipe out 50% of IT operations jobs.
The summary reveals this is a prediction by someone about what types of jobs will be available decades from now. To put this in context, consider what types of jobs were available 20 years ago.
Read the article and you learn these numbers are disputed by other experts.
What would be so wrong with this more realistic headline:
"Controversial Study Predicts Decline in US IT Operations by 50%"?
Well I would contend that even if it is not perfect, knowing the relative graduation rate coming out of a certain high school could be useful information. If the schools in a certain district send plenty of kids off to the university level but a very small percentage of them are graduating, that should raise suspicions that it may be the case that while the schools there are offering kids that look competitve with high grades and such, the kids do not actually have the background necessary to do well at the next level. No, this alone may not be the most useful statistic ever developed, but used with other stats it may still help determine the true quality of a school.
Since when have editors fact checked anything that is submitted? At least this one didn't have some completely irrelevant MS bias as the center of the summery. Thats why you always have to take anything you read on/. with a whole bucket full of salt.
"1. An embryo, bacteria, things like slime molds and viruses are all on the border between bilogical 'alive' and chemical 'alive' and sometimes when you look hard you can't really tell, arguing a scientific fact on something that is so open to interpretation is just plain stupid."
Virus yes, the rest no, you don't know what you are talking about.
"Why is spanish the fastest growing languange in the US? think religion and contraception."
Why, because Hispanics are religious nuts and baby factories? No, its because of immigration.
I really wasn't going to respond this time, but that last line really forced me to.
How do you make a standardized test for university students with a diverse field of studies? An engineering student will have learned different stuff than the biology student who will have learned different things than an English major.
1: I give up. You are clearly unable to appreciate the fact that there are two issues, one scientific (is it alive?) and one moral (what moral status do we give it?). We know the answer to the first, is it easily answered. The one that gives problems is the second. It requires us to consider the ethical reasoning why we give a special moral status to adult, child, and infant human beings and apply that reasoning to embryos to understand whether or not that moral status should be extended to them. Unfortunately, a large part of the population (on both sides of the issue) are also unable to make that distinction and you end up with all sorts of non-sensical arguments over "when does life begin?".
2: There are two very distinct ways that people of Judeo-Christian faiths view the Scriptures. One is the fundementalist approach you are talking about where every line is taken literally. If God said "Do not eat pigs" somewhere in there, it must be a sin to do so. The world was created in seven days. Etc. The other is the more moderate approach. There those books are meant more as a guide, not too be taken literally. There the books are put into context as a historical document, what was right back then is not necessarily right today. That is the what most people believe.
Thus your claims that Bush is somehow hypocritical if he eats pork are just dumb.
These are most likely being bought as insurance just in case IBM doesn't win. If you buy fire insurance and your house doesn't burn down, you don't get your money back.
The moral issue is seperate from the "is it alive" issue. The moral issue is what living beings should be protected from death. Crickets are alive, but that doesn't make me feel bad feeding them to my pet lizard. Bacteria may be alive, but thats not going to stop me from spraying an anti-bacterial spray. Being alive is not a sufficient reason to avoid killing something (though for obvious reasons it is a necessary one).
Second, just because someone is Christian or Jewish does not mean they believe in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. In fact in the Western world the vast majority do not subscribe to such a point of view.
In the sense biologists are talking about. You see the question of what makes something alive is a biological question. Not a religious question, not a philosophical question, a biological question. Your failure to see that just indicates (as I mentioned before) that you are unable to understand the issues that are at play here.
And no, western culture is not based on a strict interpretation of the old testament. I never thought I would have to tell someone that on/..
Uhh, they practically give away many medications to third world countries. No profit there. In fact I believe they end up losing money on a number of medications.
BTW, the lower prices in Canada thing is not because Canadians can't afford to pay for drugs, it is because of price controls put in place by the Canadian government.
No, the argument that there was little progress in stem cell research pre-2001 (of course there wouldn't be much progress without funding, isn't that really the point?) was a strawman as all that would be needed was the ideas surrounding stem cell research to stir up the issue.
The fact is yes, stem cell research was an issue before Bush took office, for those of you with bad memories. In fact, it was a campaign issue in 2000. Trying to deny that is just dumb.
BTW, when did I mention the previous presidency? My mention of the status of funding before Bush issued the "ban" was to refute the commonly held belief that Bush did something to stop existing funding.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not a strawman when you consider all the people out there who jump at every change in the weather and yell "It must be global warming!"
You see in the current system, if Sally graduates from Jefferson High and gets in college, Jefferson High gets the same mark regardless of what happens to her after then. But if we are keeping track of how alumni are doing at the university level, we can see whether or not Sally learned enough in high school to do well in college.
It saddens me that you so simple minded that you think that is the extent of the issues at hand.
Global warming either occurs or it doesn't. There is no theory of global lukewarming.
"It won't neccessarily ruin the economy."
And where did you get your degree in economics?
"Since there will be fines on corporations for bad environmental practices..."
Are you for some reason under the impression that such fines do not already occur? Believe it or not, big evil corporations do try to engage in environmentally clean behavior.
"This means that the jobs lost from the Kyoto agreement could come back in the form of environmental research jobs"
They might hire a few more people to deal with that problem, unlikely but possible, but the increase in taxes to pay off the Russians because they used to be a big polluter combined with the halt of development that could potentially increase pollution would kill off many more jobs than would be brought should your little theory work.
B) Global warming is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. There is a difference between the two.
A much more accurate parallel with your cancer analogy (which is no where even close to being accurate, I hope you are not about to take the SATs) is saying John got cancer. We have shown that John was exposed to some substance that is thought to be a carcinogen (lets say tobacco), thus a possible explanation for John's cancer is that carcinogen.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the world is more complicated that what your "Save the Earth" after school specials lead you to believe.
Why, if both have the exact same outcome? Are you hoping that if we try really hard we will get a gold star for effort?
"And this really might make it easier to get more effective programs under way."
No, because by effectively ruining the economy it will only ruin any chance we will be able to develop new technologies that will actually do something to help the problem.
These are things real policy makers weigh when determining whether or not to accept things like Kyoto.
Name an actual climatologist who seriously believes Kyoto will actually stop global warming.
"Human activity to blame" != "Human activity can be blamed". The study does not prove human activity was the culprit (in fact they say it is possible it was not), but merely offers an explanation in which human activity was the cause.
It didn't even mention that this was from a study, or that it was trying to predict the future. From what you could tell from the title, it sounded like some imminent event is about to happen that will wipe out all these jobs.
The summary reveals this is a prediction by someone about what types of jobs will be available decades from now. To put this in context, consider what types of jobs were available 20 years ago.
Read the article and you learn these numbers are disputed by other experts.
What would be so wrong with this more realistic headline:
"Controversial Study Predicts Decline in US IT Operations by 50%"?
Sigh...
Well I would contend that even if it is not perfect, knowing the relative graduation rate coming out of a certain high school could be useful information. If the schools in a certain district send plenty of kids off to the university level but a very small percentage of them are graduating, that should raise suspicions that it may be the case that while the schools there are offering kids that look competitve with high grades and such, the kids do not actually have the background necessary to do well at the next level. No, this alone may not be the most useful statistic ever developed, but used with other stats it may still help determine the true quality of a school.
Since when have editors fact checked anything that is submitted? At least this one didn't have some completely irrelevant MS bias as the center of the summery. Thats why you always have to take anything you read on /. with a whole bucket full of salt.
Virus yes, the rest no, you don't know what you are talking about.
"Why is spanish the fastest growing languange in the US? think religion and contraception."
Why, because Hispanics are religious nuts and baby factories? No, its because of immigration.
I really wasn't going to respond this time, but that last line really forced me to.
How do you make a standardized test for university students with a diverse field of studies? An engineering student will have learned different stuff than the biology student who will have learned different things than an English major.
2: There are two very distinct ways that people of Judeo-Christian faiths view the Scriptures. One is the fundementalist approach you are talking about where every line is taken literally. If God said "Do not eat pigs" somewhere in there, it must be a sin to do so. The world was created in seven days. Etc. The other is the more moderate approach. There those books are meant more as a guide, not too be taken literally. There the books are put into context as a historical document, what was right back then is not necessarily right today. That is the what most people believe.
Thus your claims that Bush is somehow hypocritical if he eats pork are just dumb.
Keep in mind this "headline" is almost three months old.
I think we have taken that joke as far as it will go while still being funny. I see no problem with letting it die a nice, peacful death.
These are most likely being bought as insurance just in case IBM doesn't win. If you buy fire insurance and your house doesn't burn down, you don't get your money back.
Second, just because someone is Christian or Jewish does not mean they believe in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. In fact in the Western world the vast majority do not subscribe to such a point of view.
And no, western culture is not based on a strict interpretation of the old testament. I never thought I would have to tell someone that on /..
BTW, the lower prices in Canada thing is not because Canadians can't afford to pay for drugs, it is because of price controls put in place by the Canadian government.
The fact is yes, stem cell research was an issue before Bush took office, for those of you with bad memories. In fact, it was a campaign issue in 2000. Trying to deny that is just dumb.
BTW, when did I mention the previous presidency? My mention of the status of funding before Bush issued the "ban" was to refute the commonly held belief that Bush did something to stop existing funding.
Yes, I like to ignore strawmen.