The idea is to give border patrol better information as to where to catch them.
I of course think there are better things we can do to curb illegal immigration, like helping make Mexico a better place by legalizing many drugs, which would ultimately cut off a significant amount of funds to the mexican drug cartels, but a virtual fence isn't the worst idea ever. We should have secure borders, especially in times where there are people who want to do far more than just work and live here.
My problem with this sir, is that even it did cause your son to get autism, which it didn't, it would still be worth it. Should we not spare 40% of children from DYING so that 1% doesn't get autism. That is easily worth the trade off.
I'd say about 4/5 of the people that I've known in the past to hold 4.0s actually worked extremely hard, were capable, and deserved the GPA they got. The rest weren't idiots, but knew how to play the system. But at the same time, isn't that life? Shouldn't the people that do well and/or plan ahead to ensure their future be rewarded? It sounds like you're complaining because you didn't get what you want. I don't know you, so I don't know how hard you worked, but the end result is you didn't do as well as others. That doesn't doom you. Bill Gates and Albert Einstein both dropped out of school. But you're asking for a system that prefers you. Get over it, work hard, and make something of yourself. I had a crappy GPA too. But that hasn't held me back at all in life. I didn't get to work at Google like I wanted, but I'm on my way in life. The system needs to be fixed, but it's not a failure either.
Most colleges do look at the classes you took as well, and most high-schools do weight your GPA by the level of class you took. Advanced classes being on a 5.0 scale instead of a 4.0. I'm not saying GPA is the sole descriptor of a person at all. But larger corporations that have a large volume of applicants HAVE to dwindle the selection down. Asking them to do otherwise is unreasonable given the sheer number of applicants, and GPA is one of the easiest ways to do so. If your GPA isn't great, but you're still smart and know what you're doing, the doors aren't closed to you. It just means you will have to take a different approach. Smaller businesses are less likely to base hiring off of GPA and more off of accomplishments and proven skill. And if you still want to work at a larger corporation, proving yourself at a smaller business does open that door to the larger corporation. But regardless, your argument should be further reason to support my proposed changes. Rating GPA on the capabilities and knowledge of a person rather than their test score.
I'm fine with jobs going off of GPA as an initial barrier, why? Because sometimes for every job posting they'll get upwards of 1000 applications. You have to have some sort of factor to buffer out candidates or else it becomes extremely cost ineffective. Until we reach a much higher level of AI that can sufficiently grasp things other than GPA and keywords, we're stuck using such a system. So if you can't change GPA as the barrier, why don't you change what GPA stands for. Right now all it stands for is how well you test. We need to change the system so it better reflects knowledge, understanding, and capabilities of a student. You can cheat on a test, but you can't cheat on application of that knowledge.
...the lesson here is to cheat just barely enough to get by, or to consistently cheat all the way through. A better lock just makes a better lock picker. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't discourage cheating, but the issue is why students want to cheat rather than gain the knowledge. I understand that testing is one of the best ways to gauge knowledge, but we're too focused on testing and no where near focused enough on education. Tests are proven to decrease a students interest in subjects. The solution is to move to more objective based learning where students complete projects or applications showing their knowledge of the material. Obviously testing is easier, but if our goal is education, we need to change.
The FCC sells of public property to corporations and establishes monopolies, so how does that make the FCC a valid entity to stop corporate monopolization? That is what they were intended to do. You effectively have the 1st Amendment Brigade running the internet, like you do on TV and Radio. Which is why Howard Stern is on XM. Except there isn't an alternative to the FCC mandated internet. Then the FCC is all you need to shut down Wikileaks.
Typically issues with overreaching censorship, content protection over-enforcement (http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeTheater/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=40901), forcing government ability to wiretap or monitor, build-out requirements, but most of all, they get shaped like any other government organization (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/22311012351/as-expected-fcc-approving-net-neutrality-rules-that-att-wants.shtml)
If you expect things to get easier for enemies of the RIAA and MPAA, aka the consumer, with government regulation on the internet, then you can guess again. If given the authority to control net neutrality, it won't be long before that grasp is extended to "protect businesses and artists."
back when networks still owned themselves and viewed quality of news as a public duty
I think that has far more to do with the matter than regulation. Social issues, not regulation issues.
And yes, you still had Star Trek, which got cancelled due to lack of viewer ship.
I definitely lean net neutrality and see the benefits of it. BUT, part of the argument for government protecting net neutrality is assuming the worst of a situation without government intervention and expecting only the best from it's involvement. Given the FCC's past behavior with other mediums, I'm not so sure that government involvement is going to give us that "free and open" internet we expect it will be once there is government oversight. Most government programs never accomplish what they promise to do and often come with significant negative consequences.
Ummm, if they're opting out to be in ROTC or Marching Band, I kinda think that's a valid substitute. If the goal is the get them into physical activities, I don't see how substituting physically strenuous activities for other physical activities is a problem. Unless you really think learning the fundamentals of badmitton is that important.
People pay what they value something at. Soda for example costs maybe $0.05 to fill up a glass in a restaurant. Yet people pay $2.00 for sodas in sit down restaurants. Just because something has a high profit margin doesn't mean something's dishonest. It just means you found a successful product. It would be dishonest if they were telling me I was paying for Soda and instead getting some inferior concoction, but when a product is clearly labeled and the consumer agrees to pay a price for that product, it isn't dishonest. Also, a lot of times businesses will lose money a in certain areas like when they sell you your phone under a 2 year contract, expecting to make that money back from services like this. Is it dishonest for them to sell me a phone at a loss and make money back by charging more for texting? Dishonesty would be if I went to best buy and they tell me that monster cables are amazingly superior to the $5 cables I can get from monoprice, but best buy simply selling monster cables for $50 is not dishonest, even though it's not worth that money, because they sell their TVs a lot lower than competition and expect to make it back on such accessories and service plans. That's not dishonesty, that's me being an uniformed consumer.
So you have a problem with profit? Isn't that the model of a business? They have created value in something and people are willing to pay. I see no issues with this.
Perhaps this was a bad example, because Solar is currently a dumb and less useful energy, no where near the level of capabilities of gasoline, and inconvenient to switch over to. The texting model works because it is super easy for the consumer to switch over, and gives them more bang for their buck.
This is simply really a great marketing ploy to get people into texting plans. All major carriers offer them and they're far cheaper than the pure pay per text model. If they didn't offer texting plans, this wouldn't work. Instead making the pay per text inconvenient, you get people into the text plans which guarantees their income and grows texting as people use it more frivolously, resulting in a wider spread of texting overall. In contrast, if carriers made texting purely inconvenient and pricey, you'd get less usage, resulting in less texting overall. This works in the same way people like to have the government tax things to discourage usage, like taxing oil and giving breaks to solar
So Sprint growing huge strides by offering great service and cheap plans isn't evidence that I'm right? AT&T is being a fat cow at the top and losing customers and smaller companies like sprint, US Cellular, and Virgin mobile are growing because of it.
You can only maximize profits to the point that it doesn't piss off your consumers. As long as there are options, capitalism works.
Your entire argument falls apart when one company simply decides not to join in with the ridiculous and cumbersome practices and instead offer superior service. If profit is motivation, then surely one company would realize that "hey, if everyone else is being a dick, I can make a ton of profit by not being a dick and simply getting all the frustrated customers."
The legion of doom argument that supposes all corporations sit and plot the downfall of the working class together always seems to amaze me, because it goes against the very fundamentals of capitalism. It's no different than game theory. Everyone talks about it on paper, but no one uses it in reality, because EVERYONE has to use and play along, or it doesn't freaking work.
It's all about checks and balances to make sure that no one office of branch of the government ever gets out of control.
Congress passes laws, president passes or vetoes, but congress can still pass a law by getting a 2/3 majority vote the second time through even if the president vetoes it the first time, then any law can be ruled unconstitutional and stricken by the judicial branch, but only if someone brings the case to court and argues it. Also, pay in mind that supreme court justices are appointed by the president and approved by congress.
That said, there are plenty who try and empower branches to become stronger than they are intended to. Executive orders have made the executive branch way more powerful than it should be, and making the senate elected officials like the house of representatives instead of appointed by the state governments has taken away almost all voices the state governments had in federal government, but for the most part, checks and balances are still in place.
What the hell are you talking about with Rand? Please give me an example where he's being bought and paid for by lobbyists or enforcing the will of the religious right? His policies overall are almost identical to his fathers.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is to give border patrol better information as to where to catch them. I of course think there are better things we can do to curb illegal immigration, like helping make Mexico a better place by legalizing many drugs, which would ultimately cut off a significant amount of funds to the mexican drug cartels, but a virtual fence isn't the worst idea ever. We should have secure borders, especially in times where there are people who want to do far more than just work and live here.
Hurray, now it only takes one flawed system to destroy someones life.
yeah, I realize this. I made the name up when I was 12 and have stuck with the alternate spelling ever since then. Deal with it.
My problem with this sir, is that even it did cause your son to get autism, which it didn't, it would still be worth it. Should we not spare 40% of children from DYING so that 1% doesn't get autism. That is easily worth the trade off.
I'm probably not the best person to ask, considering I did work as a locksmith for 4 years while I worked my way through school....
I'd say about 4/5 of the people that I've known in the past to hold 4.0s actually worked extremely hard, were capable, and deserved the GPA they got. The rest weren't idiots, but knew how to play the system. But at the same time, isn't that life? Shouldn't the people that do well and/or plan ahead to ensure their future be rewarded? It sounds like you're complaining because you didn't get what you want. I don't know you, so I don't know how hard you worked, but the end result is you didn't do as well as others. That doesn't doom you. Bill Gates and Albert Einstein both dropped out of school. But you're asking for a system that prefers you. Get over it, work hard, and make something of yourself. I had a crappy GPA too. But that hasn't held me back at all in life. I didn't get to work at Google like I wanted, but I'm on my way in life. The system needs to be fixed, but it's not a failure either.
it may not make me a better jumper, but it could cause me to get a ladder.
Most colleges do look at the classes you took as well, and most high-schools do weight your GPA by the level of class you took. Advanced classes being on a 5.0 scale instead of a 4.0. I'm not saying GPA is the sole descriptor of a person at all. But larger corporations that have a large volume of applicants HAVE to dwindle the selection down. Asking them to do otherwise is unreasonable given the sheer number of applicants, and GPA is one of the easiest ways to do so. If your GPA isn't great, but you're still smart and know what you're doing, the doors aren't closed to you. It just means you will have to take a different approach. Smaller businesses are less likely to base hiring off of GPA and more off of accomplishments and proven skill. And if you still want to work at a larger corporation, proving yourself at a smaller business does open that door to the larger corporation. But regardless, your argument should be further reason to support my proposed changes. Rating GPA on the capabilities and knowledge of a person rather than their test score.
I'm fine with jobs going off of GPA as an initial barrier, why? Because sometimes for every job posting they'll get upwards of 1000 applications. You have to have some sort of factor to buffer out candidates or else it becomes extremely cost ineffective. Until we reach a much higher level of AI that can sufficiently grasp things other than GPA and keywords, we're stuck using such a system. So if you can't change GPA as the barrier, why don't you change what GPA stands for. Right now all it stands for is how well you test. We need to change the system so it better reflects knowledge, understanding, and capabilities of a student. You can cheat on a test, but you can't cheat on application of that knowledge.
so, what happens if the student doesn't have a cellphone, or has two, or is borrowing one from a friend?
...the lesson here is to cheat just barely enough to get by, or to consistently cheat all the way through. A better lock just makes a better lock picker. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't discourage cheating, but the issue is why students want to cheat rather than gain the knowledge. I understand that testing is one of the best ways to gauge knowledge, but we're too focused on testing and no where near focused enough on education. Tests are proven to decrease a students interest in subjects. The solution is to move to more objective based learning where students complete projects or applications showing their knowledge of the material. Obviously testing is easier, but if our goal is education, we need to change.
The FCC sells of public property to corporations and establishes monopolies, so how does that make the FCC a valid entity to stop corporate monopolization? That is what they were intended to do. You effectively have the 1st Amendment Brigade running the internet, like you do on TV and Radio. Which is why Howard Stern is on XM. Except there isn't an alternative to the FCC mandated internet. Then the FCC is all you need to shut down Wikileaks.
Typically issues with overreaching censorship, content protection over-enforcement (http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeTheater/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=40901), forcing government ability to wiretap or monitor, build-out requirements, but most of all, they get shaped like any other government organization (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/22311012351/as-expected-fcc-approving-net-neutrality-rules-that-att-wants.shtml) If you expect things to get easier for enemies of the RIAA and MPAA, aka the consumer, with government regulation on the internet, then you can guess again. If given the authority to control net neutrality, it won't be long before that grasp is extended to "protect businesses and artists."
back when networks still owned themselves and viewed quality of news as a public duty
I think that has far more to do with the matter than regulation. Social issues, not regulation issues. And yes, you still had Star Trek, which got cancelled due to lack of viewer ship.
I definitely lean net neutrality and see the benefits of it. BUT, part of the argument for government protecting net neutrality is assuming the worst of a situation without government intervention and expecting only the best from it's involvement. Given the FCC's past behavior with other mediums, I'm not so sure that government involvement is going to give us that "free and open" internet we expect it will be once there is government oversight. Most government programs never accomplish what they promise to do and often come with significant negative consequences.
Ummm, if they're opting out to be in ROTC or Marching Band, I kinda think that's a valid substitute. If the goal is the get them into physical activities, I don't see how substituting physically strenuous activities for other physical activities is a problem. Unless you really think learning the fundamentals of badmitton is that important.
People pay what they value something at. Soda for example costs maybe $0.05 to fill up a glass in a restaurant. Yet people pay $2.00 for sodas in sit down restaurants. Just because something has a high profit margin doesn't mean something's dishonest. It just means you found a successful product. It would be dishonest if they were telling me I was paying for Soda and instead getting some inferior concoction, but when a product is clearly labeled and the consumer agrees to pay a price for that product, it isn't dishonest. Also, a lot of times businesses will lose money a in certain areas like when they sell you your phone under a 2 year contract, expecting to make that money back from services like this. Is it dishonest for them to sell me a phone at a loss and make money back by charging more for texting? Dishonesty would be if I went to best buy and they tell me that monster cables are amazingly superior to the $5 cables I can get from monoprice, but best buy simply selling monster cables for $50 is not dishonest, even though it's not worth that money, because they sell their TVs a lot lower than competition and expect to make it back on such accessories and service plans. That's not dishonesty, that's me being an uniformed consumer.
So you have a problem with profit? Isn't that the model of a business? They have created value in something and people are willing to pay. I see no issues with this.
Perhaps this was a bad example, because Solar is currently a dumb and less useful energy, no where near the level of capabilities of gasoline, and inconvenient to switch over to. The texting model works because it is super easy for the consumer to switch over, and gives them more bang for their buck.
This is simply really a great marketing ploy to get people into texting plans. All major carriers offer them and they're far cheaper than the pure pay per text model. If they didn't offer texting plans, this wouldn't work. Instead making the pay per text inconvenient, you get people into the text plans which guarantees their income and grows texting as people use it more frivolously, resulting in a wider spread of texting overall. In contrast, if carriers made texting purely inconvenient and pricey, you'd get less usage, resulting in less texting overall. This works in the same way people like to have the government tax things to discourage usage, like taxing oil and giving breaks to solar
So Sprint growing huge strides by offering great service and cheap plans isn't evidence that I'm right? AT&T is being a fat cow at the top and losing customers and smaller companies like sprint, US Cellular, and Virgin mobile are growing because of it. You can only maximize profits to the point that it doesn't piss off your consumers. As long as there are options, capitalism works.
Your entire argument falls apart when one company simply decides not to join in with the ridiculous and cumbersome practices and instead offer superior service. If profit is motivation, then surely one company would realize that "hey, if everyone else is being a dick, I can make a ton of profit by not being a dick and simply getting all the frustrated customers." The legion of doom argument that supposes all corporations sit and plot the downfall of the working class together always seems to amaze me, because it goes against the very fundamentals of capitalism. It's no different than game theory. Everyone talks about it on paper, but no one uses it in reality, because EVERYONE has to use and play along, or it doesn't freaking work.
Yahoo is the ebay of Japan. Yahoo auctions is huge there.
It's all about checks and balances to make sure that no one office of branch of the government ever gets out of control. Congress passes laws, president passes or vetoes, but congress can still pass a law by getting a 2/3 majority vote the second time through even if the president vetoes it the first time, then any law can be ruled unconstitutional and stricken by the judicial branch, but only if someone brings the case to court and argues it. Also, pay in mind that supreme court justices are appointed by the president and approved by congress. That said, there are plenty who try and empower branches to become stronger than they are intended to. Executive orders have made the executive branch way more powerful than it should be, and making the senate elected officials like the house of representatives instead of appointed by the state governments has taken away almost all voices the state governments had in federal government, but for the most part, checks and balances are still in place.
What the hell are you talking about with Rand? Please give me an example where he's being bought and paid for by lobbyists or enforcing the will of the religious right? His policies overall are almost identical to his fathers.