His solution is to replace this false perception with conditions in which a single entity would have final say over what could be aired, with the narrowing condition of furthering his progressive/socialist agenda.
I don't like it, but I can understand why he's doing it. Nowadays, if you don't play dirty you're booted out of the game.
Cachet. MIT is supposed to be the greatest technical/engineering school in the world. Harvard, the greatest liberal-arts university. The fact that neither produces excellent work in-house at a per-capita rate so much greater than the rest of the world doesn't matter any longer, because they can attract undergrads, grad students and professors through sheer cachet and deep pockets.
There's some very awesome research going on at all sorts of public institutions around the country with results that are immediately released to the public domain. I completely agree. Nobody who doesn't give a look at the USNews rankings of graduate Computer Science departments can understand why I applied to the University of Arizona. People from outside my geographical region (Capital Region of New York State) probably have no real idea what RPI is, despite the fact that they have plenty of money and science/tech/engineering education to match MIT.
The American university system runs on cachet and reputation. It doesn't help that nobody actually measures undergraduate-teaching quality, universities get ranked by how many people they reject, and graduate-level research quality runs on money (ie: cachet and reputation). However, this won't continue. My high-school graduating class (of 2007) is the largest ever. People are going to be rejected from untold, un-heard-of amounts of schools due to the sheer number of applicants. Once those results come back, I think people will start seeking more meritocracy in their university choices.
To combat the trend toward declining scores, the SAT was "recentered" in 1995, and the average score became again closer to 500.
In 2005, the test was changed again, largely in response to criticism by the University of California system.[citation needed] Because of issues concerning ambiguous questions, especially analogies, certain types of questions were eliminated (the analogies disappeared altogether). The test was made marginally harder, as a corrective to the rising number of perfect scores. And for all this supposed gaming of the SAT, the averages haven't gone up over time, and the distributions still seem rather normal at the far right of the curve.
The thing in bold claims something with which the two quotations disagree. Don't ask me why.
There will always be outliers. Looks like you are one. Yeah, I'm an outlier on nearly everything. Funny thing is, these are my sets of scores - Writing: 760, Critical Reading: 670, Math: 560; Writing: 690, Critical Reading: 780, Math: 690. More than a standard deviation's difference in every single subscore.
As to game-ability, there really is no way to "game" the test apart from knowing how to solve the problems given. But the problem-solving methods (such as adding "x = 2y" and "2x = y" to get "3x = 3y -> x = y") are non-obvious and aren't taught in schools (really, my example's not taught in school anymore). So you get a gap between people with the natural fluid reasoning to figure that kind of thing out "at run-time" and those without it. From thence comes the ability to game the test - learn the strategies ahead of time and you don't need high intelligence to score as well.
Call me an outlier, call it anecdotal evidence, but my math tutor has taught dozens of kids this stuff, and all of their scores go up by more than one sigma afterwards.
In which case you have descended into theology. "We can't understand God because He's too great and complex for our puny (ie: finite) brains." sounds exactly like "We can't understand the nature of the universe because it's too great and complex for our puny (ie: finite) brains."
If you aren't reasoning about the true nature of what you study, then you're not studying science any more. You've entered predictive religion.
So would you be willing to pay more for better support?
A lot of people, myself included, can remember how support prices were mostly the same back before outsourcing. Economic theory says that lower costs will be passed on to the consumer in lower prices. Practical economic fact seems to show lower costs being eaten as profit.
Except that the SATs can easily be gamed. My Math score went from 560 to 690 (from 65th percentile to 93rd) just by learning strategies and doing prep work!
Now, I'm not saying nobody can game a good IQ test, but it's certainly harder since there isn't a million-dollar industry dedicated to teaching you how to game IQ tests.
Or, to put things much more obviously, any test used to qualify people for anything will eventually be gamed.
Re:There is an improved VB...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
I started learning to program with Delphi. Then C and C++. Then Java and Lisp. I still use Object Pascal, because while it doesn't have the sheer expressive power of C++ templates and operator overloading, my experience tells me that just leads to fewer bugs.
I don't think so. Censorship of publications and internet postings by China is quite simply quantitatively greater censorship than the restriction on advertising political candidates 30 days prior to an election in the United States. The number of situations in which China can censor is greater than that number in the USA, and the number of expressions actually censored is greater in China than the USA.
It's not a culture issue; China really does censor more than the United States. You can quibble about various things the Bush Administration has done, but most of those are actually against United States law and will be corrected when Bush leaves power. If China's leader intentionally screws China, the Chinese must wait until his death.
Brandeis is the Jewish Harvard, with all the degradation of actual education that implies. I'm actually rather confused because I was told Brandeis had rather good Math and Science departments, and I planned to apply. Then I took a visit and saw what the place is actually like. Why do previously "elite" schools end up coasting on their own reputation and not actually educating?
I'm with you on the consumer electronics, but the car and house are different. People don't actually buy these, they take out loans and basically pay for them on installment plans. So you wind up with a difference between the rich and upper-middle class who can buy the car outright and the normal folks who have to either 1) Go without a car while scrimping and saving to buy one (impossible in the USA), or 2) Take the fucking loan. Houses are even more expensive, only the truly wealthy can afford to outright buy a house without having the money from the sale of another house.
The question is: How much are you in debt for what you have?
If you're using school as an example of showing work ethic, I think you're mostly right. Mostly. One of the big problems with income inequality is that it seems to correlate negatively with meritocracy. And when perception of meritocracy is very low, people have less incentive and motivation to work hard, even once you accept that high school (to use your example) and the corporate world are pretty much set up to minimize intrinsic motivation.
There's also the issue of positional externality. How many guys were *almost* good enough to play in the NFL, but *one other person* happened to outcompete them? Part of the problem of income inequality isn't just between rich and poor, but between how you reward The Best vs. The Second Best. A similar situation applies with musicians. Some get phenomenally rich, while most languish in "starving artist" poverty, and the disparity comes from circumstance rather than a proportional difference in skill.
Without laws, there is neither property nor even physical safety. Thus, laws constitute the market. Laws require enforcement by a government. Government must decide where it enforces its laws, hence borders. Thus, there is no Universal Background Market, as you hypothesized. In actuality, there are many different markets constituted by the governance of different laws. You can move people and goods between them, but they do not come from, form, or interfere with any larger market. Governmental borders establish the borders of different markets.
Attempting to unify two different markets (by bringing workers from one illegally into another) is not "returning" a market to an ideal free state, nor is keeping the two markets separate (by keeping illegal workers out) "interference" in either market. In fact, the converse is true.
Slashdot Mirror
Does software written by women take up less memory?
Do processors designed by women emit less heat? That's exactly what the Society of Women Engineers wants you to think!
His solution is to replace this false perception with conditions in which a single entity would have final say over what could be aired, with the narrowing condition of furthering his progressive/socialist agenda.
I don't like it, but I can understand why he's doing it. Nowadays, if you don't play dirty you're booted out of the game.
The American university system runs on cachet and reputation. It doesn't help that nobody actually measures undergraduate-teaching quality, universities get ranked by how many people they reject, and graduate-level research quality runs on money (ie: cachet and reputation). However, this won't continue. My high-school graduating class (of 2007) is the largest ever. People are going to be rejected from untold, un-heard-of amounts of schools due to the sheer number of applicants. Once those results come back, I think people will start seeking more meritocracy in their university choices.
The thing in bold claims something with which the two quotations disagree. Don't ask me why.
There will always be outliers. Looks like you are one.
Yeah, I'm an outlier on nearly everything. Funny thing is, these are my sets of scores - Writing: 760, Critical Reading: 670, Math: 560; Writing: 690, Critical Reading: 780, Math: 690. More than a standard deviation's difference in every single subscore.
As to game-ability, there really is no way to "game" the test apart from knowing how to solve the problems given. But the problem-solving methods (such as adding "x = 2y" and "2x = y" to get "3x = 3y -> x = y") are non-obvious and aren't taught in schools (really, my example's not taught in school anymore). So you get a gap between people with the natural fluid reasoning to figure that kind of thing out "at run-time" and those without it. From thence comes the ability to game the test - learn the strategies ahead of time and you don't need high intelligence to score as well.
Call me an outlier, call it anecdotal evidence, but my math tutor has taught dozens of kids this stuff, and all of their scores go up by more than one sigma afterwards.
MOND was later replaced by TeVeS.
In which case you have descended into theology. "We can't understand God because He's too great and complex for our puny (ie: finite) brains." sounds exactly like "We can't understand the nature of the universe because it's too great and complex for our puny (ie: finite) brains."
If you aren't reasoning about the true nature of what you study, then you're not studying science any more. You've entered predictive religion.
So would you be willing to pay more for better support?
A lot of people, myself included, can remember how support prices were mostly the same back before outsourcing. Economic theory says that lower costs will be passed on to the consumer in lower prices. Practical economic fact seems to show lower costs being eaten as profit.
Except that the SATs can easily be gamed. My Math score went from 560 to 690 (from 65th percentile to 93rd) just by learning strategies and doing prep work!
Now, I'm not saying nobody can game a good IQ test, but it's certainly harder since there isn't a million-dollar industry dedicated to teaching you how to game IQ tests.
Or, to put things much more obviously, any test used to qualify people for anything will eventually be gamed.
I started learning to program with Delphi. Then C and C++. Then Java and Lisp. I still use Object Pascal, because while it doesn't have the sheer expressive power of C++ templates and operator overloading, my experience tells me that just leads to fewer bugs.
I for one, welcome our new unqualified overlord on the condition that he's slightly less unqualified than our last one.
I don't think so. Censorship of publications and internet postings by China is quite simply quantitatively greater censorship than the restriction on advertising political candidates 30 days prior to an election in the United States. The number of situations in which China can censor is greater than that number in the USA, and the number of expressions actually censored is greater in China than the USA.
It's not a culture issue; China really does censor more than the United States. You can quibble about various things the Bush Administration has done, but most of those are actually against United States law and will be corrected when Bush leaves power. If China's leader intentionally screws China, the Chinese must wait until his death.
Brandeis is the Jewish Harvard, with all the degradation of actual education that implies. I'm actually rather confused because I was told Brandeis had rather good Math and Science departments, and I planned to apply. Then I took a visit and saw what the place is actually like. Why do previously "elite" schools end up coasting on their own reputation and not actually educating?
I'm with you on the consumer electronics, but the car and house are different. People don't actually buy these, they take out loans and basically pay for them on installment plans. So you wind up with a difference between the rich and upper-middle class who can buy the car outright and the normal folks who have to either 1) Go without a car while scrimping and saving to buy one (impossible in the USA), or 2) Take the fucking loan. Houses are even more expensive, only the truly wealthy can afford to outright buy a house without having the money from the sale of another house.
The question is: How much are you in debt for what you have?
"So liberty dies, to thunderous applause." - Queen Amidala, Star Wars, Episode 3: "Return of the Sith"
If you're using school as an example of showing work ethic, I think you're mostly right. Mostly. One of the big problems with income inequality is that it seems to correlate negatively with meritocracy. And when perception of meritocracy is very low, people have less incentive and motivation to work hard, even once you accept that high school (to use your example) and the corporate world are pretty much set up to minimize intrinsic motivation.
There's also the issue of positional externality. How many guys were *almost* good enough to play in the NFL, but *one other person* happened to outcompete them? Part of the problem of income inequality isn't just between rich and poor, but between how you reward The Best vs. The Second Best. A similar situation applies with musicians. Some get phenomenally rich, while most languish in "starving artist" poverty, and the disparity comes from circumstance rather than a proportional difference in skill.
Precisely: Negligent management is the cause of offshoring.
OR.... the Americans lack 5 years experience in Windows Vista C# programming and the Indians have no qualms about faking resumes.
Back in the day trying to grow could make you and your investors a profit.
I own NTDOY.PK. Every Wii you people buy increases my profits on some level. Thank you. I must now go check if Nintendo pays dividends.
Popularity and development hours are the only difference between a toy and a mainstream operating system.
New Iranian propaganda poster: "A true Muslim uses Linux. Only Zionist swine use Windows."
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx /nseries_nb
I just rewrote the same link they used for the desktops. It seems to work.
Take a look at EDI.
Without laws, there is neither property nor even physical safety. Thus, laws constitute the market. Laws require enforcement by a government. Government must decide where it enforces its laws, hence borders. Thus, there is no Universal Background Market, as you hypothesized. In actuality, there are many different markets constituted by the governance of different laws. You can move people and goods between them, but they do not come from, form, or interfere with any larger market. Governmental borders establish the borders of different markets.
Attempting to unify two different markets (by bringing workers from one illegally into another) is not "returning" a market to an ideal free state, nor is keeping the two markets separate (by keeping illegal workers out) "interference" in either market. In fact, the converse is true.