I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being used to support the education of people who can't manage to get a scholarship to Carnegie Mellon on their own. I managed to (turned it down) and if I can do it then so can a fair number of other works who don't have rich parents. And this is back in day when colleges and universities actually had standards that were fairly difficult to meet.
It must be genuinely wonderful to be able to go through life so completely oblivious to a problem. You've actually managed to loose the story line of the article, which, by the way.is: the problems with American schools being equipped with the competent staff, who by the way, are meant to train these very folks who aren't bright enough and whom you so deride for not being able to play a financial-allotment system that no doubt has changed drastically in the X-years since you have graduated.
But rather than actually address that issue, you've gone off on a rant about how today's college students obviously must be idiots for their inability to win "merit scholarships." And what is more, you actually have the nerve to say "I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being used to support the education of people who can't manage to get a scholarship to Carnegie Mellon on their own" to a young man who has not only earned his way into a a pretigious school (and yes, they do actually make you apply to college these days, which means getting-in is something you've actually earned ), but who has also voluntarily given up the next half-decade of his life, to spend it thousands of miles away from those he loves, and yet remain committed to an organization dedicated to defending the likes of YOU, who would deride him for it.
Not only did you manage to completely lose the point of the article -- which, has absolutely nothing to do with religion, though you chose that as the easiest avenue of attack -- but you actually used it as a means to puff yourself up.
Address the article and the problem, not a tangeant issue so far on the periphery that it bears no relevance to the issue at hand. And then, please be so kind as to stop the hot air.
Background: I'm politically moderate, but lean to the left. The prospect of turning into an Orwellian "war is peace, freedom is slavery" type state is, admittedly, disquieting, but it by no means haunts my every thought. Like all the "average US citizen" who displays "his faith and patriotism" and appears to live their oblivious life apathetic to the "monstrous" changes arount them, I go to school and work and home to my family every day. Just for reference.
What puzzels and so disappoints me about many of these posts is that even though everyone recognizes and decries the political evil they see rising on the horizon, I've heard few words save "this is wrong. something needs to be done."
I don't like the Patriot Act. I think it's preposterous and a complete affront to the spirit and reality of our Constitution. Many do. But, it is saddening to see so many people, who believe so passionately and have thought out their positions so clearly, often utterly unwilling to do a damn thing. Think what we have done, other than make our post and argue hotly about the topic with our friends at dinner.
I didn't like what I saw happening. But sitting on my ass bitching would accomplish nothing, so i did something: I am now a US Army officer. So are many of my classmates. Admittedly, I'm young, green as a blade of grass, and far on the side of idealism, but at least i did something. many people do far more, and my admiration for them is practically limitless - they protest or petition or make tremendous sacrifices, but they do more than claim precious status as the insightful minority and content themselves to fuming and feeling sickened at what they see.
Feel outraged, by all means, argue, debate, and push at this issue until its changed. But simply because we pions appear apathetic and unperturbed by the events around us doesn't mean we are. Let's get off our pedestals from which we oversee mindless obediance and shake our heads oh so disapprovingly, and quit bitching. Do something or sit down, but don't simply seethe over an injustice we cannot be bothered to at least endeavor to correct.
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."~Anonymous
"The US is a real shining beakon of human liberty. Where else can you get taserd by a cop for mouthing off? Where else could the military be free to keep citizens locked up for years without trials or charges? Only in America!"
Where else can you publicly chide a government with whom you do not agree WITHOUT being arrested, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or murdered? ONLY IN....wait, there are many places other than America... not that American political clout, the ability to project power abroad, or ideological freedom have anything to do with that.
You don't have to agree with the policies of a conservative government - it's anyone's constitutional perrogative not to, in fact. If you disagree with the path America is walking down, then perhaps we should stop saying "I don't like this, it's not fair" and get off our butts and do something - anything, however small - to fix it. Like I said, you don't have to agree with the way things are, but you DO have to keep things in perspective - and if all a person's going to do is whine, they'd be better to put their efforts into something constructive.
I'm going to now return to drinking me Starbucks Lowfat Carmel Macchiato in the comfy chair of my office, where I will be reliably (and legally) employed for the next 8hrs, without fear for my life, health, or imminent safety. After browsing this sight, I'm going to switch my computer to another link (provided for my viewing pleasure without censorship or fear of reprisal), finish a day of work, get into my sedan, and drive home to my family.
With all do respect, have you gone mad? Understandably, any government - particularly one as still shell-shocked as our present one - is going to want to limit the number of future-maniacs they incubate in their own educational atmosphere. Qian Xuesen and Jonathan Pollam repeats are...well, not welcome.
But to maintain that the restriction of IT flow is a good thing is, historically speaking, absurd. True, Xuesen helped usher in the current version of the old Cold War, mais au meme temps, as many here in America are learning, if you only look at the bad side of things, worse happens. In our haste to protect ourselves -- a perfectly logical, natural, sane thing to do -- let's not forget that marvelous things happen when we let the information flow. Samuel Slater (*whose own government, 19th century Britain, banned any sharing of their factory technology as a national secret key to their economic dominance - enforcing the interdiction with penalty of death)? Albert Einstien?
But then again, ennumerating a list is painfully easy, and given what I'm guessing is the cleverness of the majority of people browsing this site, it would also be condescending.
Point in brief: self-preservation is natural; intellectual isolation is not. Caution is understandable, paranoia is unreasonable. In our collective and private wishes to remain safe and sound, by all means let's keep our eyes and ears open to possible boogeymen - but for God's sake, let's keep in mind that some people genuinely want to LEARN, and want to do that HERE. There's a reason for that. There's something in our national character, in our international reputation, in our domestic disposition that makes people genuinely want to be here. Personally, that's far more worth preserving than a vague mirage of self-security. "Twenty thousdand illegal aliens can't be wrong," - well, neither can thousands of students.
I'll give you that a good number of companies perhaps do follow your "'shareholder x 3'/CEO" credo. but not all of them, mate. arguably, not even the majority. no where close. Perhaps some of the big companies -- ENRON, AOL, MCI, or anything Bill Gates has ever touched -- come to mind first and provide fuel for your argument. But the majority of companies traded on the market, and the VAST majority of those in existence (partnerships, family owned businesses - small OR large) don't operate that way.
A prime example of a "big company" that very distinctly does not follow your "stockholder-ceo" allegiance theorem is the Howard Hughes Company. A bit of history: Howard Hughes did a LOT of government contracting during his life, but didn't always live up to the requirements. Upon his death, the government couldn't retrieve (for leagal reasons) the money they'd loaned him for his projects because he had left it all to the Howard Hughes (pharmacuitical research) Company. Today HHC is one of the few firms that operates and finances R&D off its own surplus reserves. Moreover, it grants six years guaranteed research grants to scientists REGARDLESS OF RESULTS: if the researchers fail, their grant is not prematurely withdrawn, some times it is even renewed with the "fix it" or "try something new since you can" message. This sounds a lot like the type of company BonHamme Richard mentioned -- and not at ALL like the money-driven success-mad firms you describe.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but on rare occassions this policy can yield what are, for lack of better phrasing, naive answers to realistic questions.
Capitalism, and the principle that personal ownership intrinsically yields personal responsibility, do not ALWAYS apply, contrary to what many of us have been raised to think. Part of the entire reason the space program is NOT left to either market forces or to private ownership, is that it is not profitably for any firm to do so. Think about it: we all love the pictures Hubbel sends back, but how many of us are willing to pay $1.50 for each chance to see them. Privitization only works based on the economic principle of perspective-profit driven firm action. here, there IS no likelihood for profit. So all that would happen to our dear Hubble is that it would end up abandoned, as many fear it is being so abandoned now (which it is not).
Granted the point that in post 9-11 government funds might best be spent elsewhere, I still argue that by now allowing NASA to continue its relative monopoly over the space program (i say "relative" because factually, NASA does quite a bit of outside contracting), what will be the end result is what we all do NOT want to happen: the end of the space program in full.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being used to support the education of people who can't manage to get a scholarship to Carnegie Mellon on their own. I managed to (turned it down) and if I can do it then so can a fair number of other works who don't have rich parents. And this is back in day when colleges and universities actually had standards that were fairly difficult to meet.
It must be genuinely wonderful to be able to go through life so completely oblivious to a problem. You've actually managed to loose the story line of the article, which, by the way.is: the problems with American schools being equipped with the competent staff, who by the way, are meant to train these very folks who aren't bright enough and whom you so deride for not being able to play a financial-allotment system that no doubt has changed drastically in the X-years since you have graduated.
But rather than actually address that issue, you've gone off on a rant about how today's college students obviously must be idiots for their inability to win "merit scholarships." And what is more, you actually have the nerve to say "I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being used to support the education of people who can't manage to get a scholarship to Carnegie Mellon on their own" to a young man who has not only earned his way into a a pretigious school (and yes, they do actually make you apply to college these days, which means getting-in is something you've actually earned ), but who has also voluntarily given up the next half-decade of his life, to spend it thousands of miles away from those he loves, and yet remain committed to an organization dedicated to defending the likes of YOU, who would deride him for it.
Not only did you manage to completely lose the point of the article -- which, has absolutely nothing to do with religion, though you chose that as the easiest avenue of attack -- but you actually used it as a means to puff yourself up.
Address the article and the problem, not a tangeant issue so far on the periphery that it bears no relevance to the issue at hand. And then, please be so kind as to stop the hot air.
What puzzels and so disappoints me about many of these posts is that even though everyone recognizes and decries the political evil they see rising on the horizon, I've heard few words save "this is wrong. something needs to be done." I don't like the Patriot Act. I think it's preposterous and a complete affront to the spirit and reality of our Constitution. Many do. But, it is saddening to see so many people, who believe so passionately and have thought out their positions so clearly, often utterly unwilling to do a damn thing. Think what we have done, other than make our post and argue hotly about the topic with our friends at dinner.
I didn't like what I saw happening. But sitting on my ass bitching would accomplish nothing, so i did something: I am now a US Army officer. So are many of my classmates. Admittedly, I'm young, green as a blade of grass, and far on the side of idealism, but at least i did something. many people do far more, and my admiration for them is practically limitless - they protest or petition or make tremendous sacrifices, but they do more than claim precious status as the insightful minority and content themselves to fuming and feeling sickened at what they see.
Feel outraged, by all means, argue, debate, and push at this issue until its changed. But simply because we pions appear apathetic and unperturbed by the events around us doesn't mean we are. Let's get off our pedestals from which we oversee mindless obediance and shake our heads oh so disapprovingly, and quit bitching. Do something or sit down, but don't simply seethe over an injustice we cannot be bothered to at least endeavor to correct.
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."~Anonymous
Goodmorning, Dave.
Where else can you publicly chide a government with whom you do not agree WITHOUT being arrested, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or murdered? ONLY IN....wait, there are many places other than America... not that American political clout, the ability to project power abroad, or ideological freedom have anything to do with that.
You don't have to agree with the policies of a conservative government - it's anyone's constitutional perrogative not to, in fact. If you disagree with the path America is walking down, then perhaps we should stop saying "I don't like this, it's not fair" and get off our butts and do something - anything, however small - to fix it. Like I said, you don't have to agree with the way things are, but you DO have to keep things in perspective - and if all a person's going to do is whine, they'd be better to put their efforts into something constructive.
I'm going to now return to drinking me Starbucks Lowfat Carmel Macchiato in the comfy chair of my office, where I will be reliably (and legally) employed for the next 8hrs, without fear for my life, health, or imminent safety. After browsing this sight, I'm going to switch my computer to another link (provided for my viewing pleasure without censorship or fear of reprisal), finish a day of work, get into my sedan, and drive home to my family.
THAT, folks, is a Real "only in America."
But to maintain that the restriction of IT flow is a good thing is, historically speaking, absurd. True, Xuesen helped usher in the current version of the old Cold War, mais au meme temps, as many here in America are learning, if you only look at the bad side of things, worse happens. In our haste to protect ourselves -- a perfectly logical, natural, sane thing to do -- let's not forget that marvelous things happen when we let the information flow. Samuel Slater (*whose own government, 19th century Britain, banned any sharing of their factory technology as a national secret key to their economic dominance - enforcing the interdiction with penalty of death)? Albert Einstien?
But then again, ennumerating a list is painfully easy, and given what I'm guessing is the cleverness of the majority of people browsing this site, it would also be condescending.
Point in brief: self-preservation is natural; intellectual isolation is not. Caution is understandable, paranoia is unreasonable. In our collective and private wishes to remain safe and sound, by all means let's keep our eyes and ears open to possible boogeymen - but for God's sake, let's keep in mind that some people genuinely want to LEARN, and want to do that HERE. There's a reason for that. There's something in our national character, in our international reputation, in our domestic disposition that makes people genuinely want to be here. Personally, that's far more worth preserving than a vague mirage of self-security. "Twenty thousdand illegal aliens can't be wrong," - well, neither can thousands of students.
I'll give you that a good number of companies perhaps do follow your "'shareholder x 3'/CEO" credo. but not all of them, mate. arguably, not even the majority. no where close. Perhaps some of the big companies -- ENRON, AOL, MCI, or anything Bill Gates has ever touched -- come to mind first and provide fuel for your argument. But the majority of companies traded on the market, and the VAST majority of those in existence (partnerships, family owned businesses - small OR large) don't operate that way.
A prime example of a "big company" that very distinctly does not follow your "stockholder-ceo" allegiance theorem is the Howard Hughes Company. A bit of history: Howard Hughes did a LOT of government contracting during his life, but didn't always live up to the requirements. Upon his death, the government couldn't retrieve (for leagal reasons) the money they'd loaned him for his projects because he had left it all to the Howard Hughes (pharmacuitical research) Company. Today HHC is one of the few firms that operates and finances R&D off its own surplus reserves. Moreover, it grants six years guaranteed research grants to scientists REGARDLESS OF RESULTS: if the researchers fail, their grant is not prematurely withdrawn, some times it is even renewed with the "fix it" or "try something new since you can" message. This sounds a lot like the type of company BonHamme Richard mentioned -- and not at ALL like the money-driven success-mad firms you describe.
Bottom line. Nothing more and nothing less.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but on rare occassions this policy can yield what are, for lack of better phrasing, naive answers to realistic questions. Capitalism, and the principle that personal ownership intrinsically yields personal responsibility, do not ALWAYS apply, contrary to what many of us have been raised to think. Part of the entire reason the space program is NOT left to either market forces or to private ownership, is that it is not profitably for any firm to do so. Think about it: we all love the pictures Hubbel sends back, but how many of us are willing to pay $1.50 for each chance to see them. Privitization only works based on the economic principle of perspective-profit driven firm action. here, there IS no likelihood for profit. So all that would happen to our dear Hubble is that it would end up abandoned, as many fear it is being so abandoned now (which it is not). Granted the point that in post 9-11 government funds might best be spent elsewhere, I still argue that by now allowing NASA to continue its relative monopoly over the space program (i say "relative" because factually, NASA does quite a bit of outside contracting), what will be the end result is what we all do NOT want to happen: the end of the space program in full.