It must be something added in a newer version of Disqus, then, because other blogs that use it seem to work fine w/ no exceptions. It's only this particular one that's jacked up. volokh.com, btw, is the blog.
I just encountered this today, in fact. A blog I read uses Disqus to manage its comments. For some reason, on this particular blog, the comments wouldn't display until I selectively turned off blocking certain items on the page that part of the default list in Adblock Plus. Even then I could see the comments but not add my own. Had to create exceptions for a few additional items before the Disqus section would actually let me post.
SPDY does not depend at all on CPUs or your "internet speed".
CPU is mostly irrelevant, true, but the characteristics of one's network connection are likely very relevant to the sort of speedup one should expect to see from SPDY. My understanding is that the greater the latency between client and server the greater the benefit the client is likely to experience from using SPDY.
My conscience won't allow me to accept money from either. The medical/pharmaceutical industries undoubtedly require complex software, but the unavoidable animal testing at the end of the pipeline probably lifts its body count higher even than the defense industry's.
First, you're an idiot. To answer your question, though, how about weather simulations. Also astrophysics. Buddy of mine researches black holes; all he seems to do is run long-running cpu-intensive simulations. Not sure how you'd attach yourself to a research group without being a researcher, though.
Hardly. Tuition has increased over 400% [pbs.org] since 1985, and doubled in the last decade. Your link plays the "lies, damn lies and statistics" game by talking about how scholarships and grants have increased while leaving out the fact that not everyone has access to the same scholarships and grants.
If you're in the top tier wealth-wise then yeah, you're not going to have access to those scholarships and grants. To which I say, "boo freaking hoo". If you're not in that tier then you do have access to them. These aren't merit-based scholarships we're talking about; it's financial aid. Consider that Harvard is now free for students from households earning $65k/year or less. It wasn't always that way; that's a recent development. My household income is around the 15th percentile nationally. If my kid were to attend Harvard he'd pay somewhere around 1/3 sticker price. You really can't use the rate of increase of marginal tuition cost as your stat for demonstrating that college is less affordable than it once was. The marginal tuition cost only applies when you're at the margin. Incidentally, if tuition were merely to have tracked inflation from 1985 to 2005 it would cost 182% as much. So in real terms we're looking at an increase of 120% in marginal tuition cost over that period, much of which (but not all) was defrayed by corresponding increases in financial aid grants.
Don't you mean room and board and utilities and food? A few thousand dollars in subsidy a year that many other students didn't have? Nah, I'm sure that had nothing to do with you being able to graduate debt-free compared to those other students.
The definition of "room and board" typically includes food. Utilities are assumed to be part of the housing cost. The money I got from my parents allowed me to attend the university I attended without taking on any debt. Had they not contributed and I'd had to borrow the money instead, and if I'd chosen to attend the same university, I'd have graduated with around $20k of debt. That assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that I wouldn't have qualified for some sort of financial aid grant in the absence of my parents' assistance. Faced with the necessity of taking out loans I might have chosen instead to attend one of a couple other universities that offered me a free ride.
In 1997? Like I said, you're speaking from an entirely separate universe from today's college grads. Tuition was far cheaper, and it was relatively easy to find a job as it was at the height of the tech bubble.
If I were entering college right now I wouldn't be paying tuition, so the fact that tuition is higher is somewhat irrelevant. Jobs were indeed plentiful when I got out of graduate school in 1999 compared to today. Then again, the tech job situation in the very same geographic area is currently extremely tight. In this particular geographic area I would have about the same difficulty getting a job in 2012 as I did in 1999. And, obviously, nothing's stopping folks with tech degrees who live in other parts of the country from relocating here.
How does it not? No matter how little you are willing to work for, an even more frugal worker from India can undercut your lowest acceptable salary by almost five thousand dollars a year.
So you think that if we open the flood gates to foreign tech workers the salaries for tech jobs will fall so low that you can't support yourself on one and simultaneously pay off a $400/mo loan. Seriously?
You're making an excellent attempt to avoid the point: that expensive tuition rates are hardly limited to "top" schools.
There are plenty of schools whose tuition isn't as high as the ones in California. If you can't get into Berkeley or UCLA then maybe you're better off going to Kansas or Nebraska. Nobody's forcing you to pay top dollar for a mediocr
May be wrong on the history here, but the robber barons didn't generally give all their money away when they died. They gave it to their kids. Gates has said he's not going to do that; we'll see if he follows through.
Look at some of the guys history remembers. Thomas Edison? Henry Ford? We don't remember Henry Ford because of the Ford Foundation either. Gladwell seems to think the historical fame of entrepreneurs is based mainly on their charity. Why? Jobs will be remembered not just because he guided Apple to be the most capitalized company ever, but because he was a "character" while doing so. The black sweater and tennis shoes, the hippie past, the dickish behavior behind closed doors, the fact that he was fired then brought back, etc.
Now whether that is because the kid is learning disabled, or because he has bad teachers, we have no idea, do we.
Exactly. Which is why the blanket recommendation that he be put in public school so that he might benefit from the instruction of "qualified" instructors was stupid. This kid and his home schooling environment may be such that he would actually benefit from attending public school, but we can't know that from the simple fact that he's reading below level. You might as well assert without justification that public school kids who are reading below level should instead be home schooled.
The cost of higher education is in a different universe from where it was just ten years ago.
This is mostly a myth. The marginal cost has gone way up but fewer and fewer students actually pay full price. The net cost of public schools (since we're talking about a cost-conscious consumer) has gone up by about 25% over the last 15 years after accounting for inflation.
Your family paid for your education. Not exactly new - Bush would have been a community college dropout without his daddy's money. Not everyone has a rich-assed dad though.
My parents helped with room and board; not tuition. They weren't especially wealthy. This strikes me as quite reasonable. Had I lacked their support I'd have either gone to a school that offered to pay room and board or I'd have taken out loans. The grand total would have been about $20k for four years (ending in 1997).
And how well are you going to be able to compete when you have to pay $400 a month on your student loans - when the cheap import labor has no such costs to deal with?
How does having a $400/mo loan payment affect my ability to compete in the job market? If I had that kind of obligation I'd live more frugally than I might otherwise. My need to live frugally would have no bearing on my ability to get hired and perform well in a job.
California public unis now cost more than Ivy Leage schools.
You make an excellent argument for not attending a public university in California.
You don't know there's a reason that so many call centers are located in India, or that people can't learn a second language? Or that if only 1% of Chinese students learn fluent English and want to work in America, that equates to over 10 million competitors for American jobs?
We're not talking about call centers in India. We're talking about STEM jobs in the U.S. There are tons of fluent Chinese and Indian speakers of English. Most, while fluent, still can't communicate as well as native speakers. I know because I work with them and interview them.
[We're competing with them regardless of where they are.] No. We're not.
For the kinds of positions I'm talking about, yes we are. People can start companies here or they can start them "there", where "there" is "the rest of the world". The more smart people we have "here" the more likely it is that new enterprises will start "here" rather than "there".
If I'm good a math and want to teach it in high school, I actually don't have to compete with math grads from Bangladesh. Same for medical doctors or engineers. Your brilliant proposal would take care of that, though.
Here's where the fact that this isn't zero sum comes into play. Only some percentage of immigrants will be math teachers. Only some percentage will be doctors. They'll be mixed in with engineers, developers, scientists, businessmen, etc. These guys and gals will have kids. That means more teaching jobs. More trips to the doctor. Etc. Hell, more eating out at restaurants, more buying crap at the mall, etc. The U.S. has the opportunity to skim off a good chunk of these countries' very best and brightest. It's basically reverse brain drain. It blows my mind that you can't see how it would be beneficial to integrate them into the U.S. citizenry.
Why is a 10 year old learning chemistry in the first place? I mean, I'm all for kids learning things they're interested in, so if he's expressed an interest then more power to him. In my public school environment I wasn't exposed to chemistry per se until 11th grade. So, when I was 15. There were "earth science" and "general physical science" in 7th and 8th grades respectively, but I hesitate to call those "chemistry".
Did you notice where he said his kids were being instructed by a PhD chemist? Plenty of university chemistry classes have no lab component. Are students in those classes not "doing chemistry"?
It's worth noting that fully 50% of students in public school are reading at a "below average" level. The OP says his grandson isn't reading "as well as schooled kids his age". Which schooled kids? Where does the grandson fall on a percentile basis? It's a near certainty there are some kids in the public system that are performing even worse than the grandson despite having received instruction from "qualified" individuals.
Could they license the ideas/methods to phone manufacturers directly, so that they could ship their phones with a specially patched version of Android?
1. I took on no debt. I compete. If you have the tools to eventually compete successfully then most likely you can get your education paid for.
2. If I had to take on five or six figures of student loan debt in order to get a high-paying job (that would allow me to repay my student loan debt in short order) then I'd do it and call it a bargain.
3. Top universities in China and India aren't free. Especially when one considers that the average Chinese or Indian has income much lower than the average American.
4. You're a native English speaker. They're not. You don't think that gives you a leg up?
5. We're competing with them regardless of where they are. Bringing them here lets Americans reap the benefits of their productivity instead of their home country. That's a win.
6. It's not a zero sum game in which there a fixed number of jobs. The more smart, productive people pour into this country the more jobs there will eventually be.
Let 'em all in. If you're going to pull down six digits (and pay taxes on it) then I say: WELCOME TO THE U.S.A.
Here's the thing. We Americans don't actually build stuff, grow stuff or put stuff together anymore. Well, we do, but it's becoming more and more rare. What do we do? We make software and design stuff. Unfortunately, the kind of endeavors one might easily imagining doing somewhere else. We really, really don't want that to happen, since it's this kind of activity we're going to rely on moving forward to support the rest of the economy, which is inwardly focused (medicine, finance, service industry, etc.) That's why we really want all the world's bad-ass scientists, engineers and developers to re-locate their Hindi / Mandarin / who-the-hell-cares-as-long-as-they-also-speak-English selves stateside and get to work building the next Facebook Google.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't help thinking that if Microsoft were based in Europe, and had behaved in the exact same fashion, it wouldn't have gone down this way.
Is this not the thread about why there are no women in computer science? My mistake.
It must be something added in a newer version of Disqus, then, because other blogs that use it seem to work fine w/ no exceptions. It's only this particular one that's jacked up. volokh.com, btw, is the blog.
I just encountered this today, in fact. A blog I read uses Disqus to manage its comments. For some reason, on this particular blog, the comments wouldn't display until I selectively turned off blocking certain items on the page that part of the default list in Adblock Plus. Even then I could see the comments but not add my own. Had to create exceptions for a few additional items before the Disqus section would actually let me post.
CPU is mostly irrelevant, true, but the characteristics of one's network connection are likely very relevant to the sort of speedup one should expect to see from SPDY. My understanding is that the greater the latency between client and server the greater the benefit the client is likely to experience from using SPDY.
First, you're an idiot. To answer your question, though, how about weather simulations. Also astrophysics. Buddy of mine researches black holes; all he seems to do is run long-running cpu-intensive simulations. Not sure how you'd attach yourself to a research group without being a researcher, though.
Quite possibly. That's still very different from willing them a billion dollars.
If you're in the top tier wealth-wise then yeah, you're not going to have access to those scholarships and grants. To which I say, "boo freaking hoo". If you're not in that tier then you do have access to them. These aren't merit-based scholarships we're talking about; it's financial aid. Consider that Harvard is now free for students from households earning $65k/year or less. It wasn't always that way; that's a recent development. My household income is around the 15th percentile nationally. If my kid were to attend Harvard he'd pay somewhere around 1/3 sticker price. You really can't use the rate of increase of marginal tuition cost as your stat for demonstrating that college is less affordable than it once was. The marginal tuition cost only applies when you're at the margin. Incidentally, if tuition were merely to have tracked inflation from 1985 to 2005 it would cost 182% as much. So in real terms we're looking at an increase of 120% in marginal tuition cost over that period, much of which (but not all) was defrayed by corresponding increases in financial aid grants.
The definition of "room and board" typically includes food. Utilities are assumed to be part of the housing cost. The money I got from my parents allowed me to attend the university I attended without taking on any debt. Had they not contributed and I'd had to borrow the money instead, and if I'd chosen to attend the same university, I'd have graduated with around $20k of debt. That assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that I wouldn't have qualified for some sort of financial aid grant in the absence of my parents' assistance. Faced with the necessity of taking out loans I might have chosen instead to attend one of a couple other universities that offered me a free ride.
If I were entering college right now I wouldn't be paying tuition, so the fact that tuition is higher is somewhat irrelevant. Jobs were indeed plentiful when I got out of graduate school in 1999 compared to today. Then again, the tech job situation in the very same geographic area is currently extremely tight. In this particular geographic area I would have about the same difficulty getting a job in 2012 as I did in 1999. And, obviously, nothing's stopping folks with tech degrees who live in other parts of the country from relocating here.
So you think that if we open the flood gates to foreign tech workers the salaries for tech jobs will fall so low that you can't support yourself on one and simultaneously pay off a $400/mo loan. Seriously?
There are plenty of schools whose tuition isn't as high as the ones in California. If you can't get into Berkeley or UCLA then maybe you're better off going to Kansas or Nebraska. Nobody's forcing you to pay top dollar for a mediocr
May be wrong on the history here, but the robber barons didn't generally give all their money away when they died. They gave it to their kids. Gates has said he's not going to do that; we'll see if he follows through.
Look at some of the guys history remembers. Thomas Edison? Henry Ford? We don't remember Henry Ford because of the Ford Foundation either. Gladwell seems to think the historical fame of entrepreneurs is based mainly on their charity. Why? Jobs will be remembered not just because he guided Apple to be the most capitalized company ever, but because he was a "character" while doing so. The black sweater and tennis shoes, the hippie past, the dickish behavior behind closed doors, the fact that he was fired then brought back, etc.
Like most monitors, this one is used to watch boobies.
Exactly. Which is why the blanket recommendation that he be put in public school so that he might benefit from the instruction of "qualified" instructors was stupid. This kid and his home schooling environment may be such that he would actually benefit from attending public school, but we can't know that from the simple fact that he's reading below level. You might as well assert without justification that public school kids who are reading below level should instead be home schooled.
You're correct; I misspoke. Treat that post as if I'd said "below median".
That was the point. That there are plenty of kids in public school who are also reading at a substandard level.
This is mostly a myth. The marginal cost has gone way up but fewer and fewer students actually pay full price. The net cost of public schools (since we're talking about a cost-conscious consumer) has gone up by about 25% over the last 15 years after accounting for inflation.
My parents helped with room and board; not tuition. They weren't especially wealthy. This strikes me as quite reasonable. Had I lacked their support I'd have either gone to a school that offered to pay room and board or I'd have taken out loans. The grand total would have been about $20k for four years (ending in 1997).
How does having a $400/mo loan payment affect my ability to compete in the job market? If I had that kind of obligation I'd live more frugally than I might otherwise. My need to live frugally would have no bearing on my ability to get hired and perform well in a job.
You make an excellent argument for not attending a public university in California.
We're not talking about call centers in India. We're talking about STEM jobs in the U.S. There are tons of fluent Chinese and Indian speakers of English. Most, while fluent, still can't communicate as well as native speakers. I know because I work with them and interview them.
For the kinds of positions I'm talking about, yes we are. People can start companies here or they can start them "there", where "there" is "the rest of the world". The more smart people we have "here" the more likely it is that new enterprises will start "here" rather than "there".
Here's where the fact that this isn't zero sum comes into play. Only some percentage of immigrants will be math teachers. Only some percentage will be doctors. They'll be mixed in with engineers, developers, scientists, businessmen, etc. These guys and gals will have kids. That means more teaching jobs. More trips to the doctor. Etc. Hell, more eating out at restaurants, more buying crap at the mall, etc. The U.S. has the opportunity to skim off a good chunk of these countries' very best and brightest. It's basically reverse brain drain. It blows my mind that you can't see how it would be beneficial to integrate them into the U.S. citizenry.
I applaud you for picking up on that oh-so-subtle aspect of the point I was trying to make.
Anecdotal, sure, but check out the recent Republican senate primary in Nebraska. Dark horse beat two better-funded alternatives.
Why is a 10 year old learning chemistry in the first place? I mean, I'm all for kids learning things they're interested in, so if he's expressed an interest then more power to him. In my public school environment I wasn't exposed to chemistry per se until 11th grade. So, when I was 15. There were "earth science" and "general physical science" in 7th and 8th grades respectively, but I hesitate to call those "chemistry".
Did you notice where he said his kids were being instructed by a PhD chemist? Plenty of university chemistry classes have no lab component. Are students in those classes not "doing chemistry"?
It's worth noting that fully 50% of students in public school are reading at a "below average" level. The OP says his grandson isn't reading "as well as schooled kids his age". Which schooled kids? Where does the grandson fall on a percentile basis? It's a near certainty there are some kids in the public system that are performing even worse than the grandson despite having received instruction from "qualified" individuals.
Could they license the ideas/methods to phone manufacturers directly, so that they could ship their phones with a specially patched version of Android?
Some thoughts in no particular order:
1. I took on no debt. I compete. If you have the tools to eventually compete successfully then most likely you can get your education paid for.
2. If I had to take on five or six figures of student loan debt in order to get a high-paying job (that would allow me to repay my student loan debt in short order) then I'd do it and call it a bargain.
3. Top universities in China and India aren't free. Especially when one considers that the average Chinese or Indian has income much lower than the average American.
4. You're a native English speaker. They're not. You don't think that gives you a leg up?
5. We're competing with them regardless of where they are. Bringing them here lets Americans reap the benefits of their productivity instead of their home country. That's a win.
6. It's not a zero sum game in which there a fixed number of jobs. The more smart, productive people pour into this country the more jobs there will eventually be.
Short sell for fun and profit.
Subsidies, yo.
Let 'em all in. If you're going to pull down six digits (and pay taxes on it) then I say: WELCOME TO THE U.S.A.
Here's the thing. We Americans don't actually build stuff, grow stuff or put stuff together anymore. Well, we do, but it's becoming more and more rare. What do we do? We make software and design stuff. Unfortunately, the kind of endeavors one might easily imagining doing somewhere else. We really, really don't want that to happen, since it's this kind of activity we're going to rely on moving forward to support the rest of the economy, which is inwardly focused (medicine, finance, service industry, etc.) That's why we really want all the world's bad-ass scientists, engineers and developers to re-locate their Hindi / Mandarin / who-the-hell-cares-as-long-as-they-also-speak-English selves stateside and get to work building the next Facebook Google.