That's typical from my experience. It is somewhat understandable, there often times aren't the resources to look at thousands of applications in greater depth. But allowing HR to make those sorts of decisions is an excellent way of ensuring that you don't employ any actual competent professionals.
You really have to do your research, an institution should be accredited, and receive the accreditation from a respected body. If it's not accredited, you really shouldn't even consider going there as there's no ability to transfer the credits and little assurance that the paper will be worth anything at all to anybody.
But just because a college is accredited by a recognized body doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to count, if the accreditation isn't by the right body, you might not be able to get money back from employee development programs.
And just because an institution isn't itself accredited, doesn't mean that it isn't legit. My current schooling is being done through a small private school which issues credits through an accredited institution. The coursework itself is legitimate and very hard, but they don't have the resources to issue the credits directly.
That's the problem, there is no guarantee of funding for controversial research. It doesn't matter how legitimate the research might be, if it looks like it might challenge somebody important you might not be able to get funding. Likewise if you're just looking to replicate results, it's easier to get money to do new research.
It's not good, but that's reality. Do research that's unpopular and you might not be able to get any money at all in the future.
The two are related, the main issue is that at some point something becomes likely enough to acknowledge. It really is true that you can't be certain of anything, everything gets filtered before we become cognizant of it, however, in order to get anything done you do need to have some willingness to go with things on surface value.
Last week I was driving and I saw a car trying to squeeze through a tight spot to turn right. I looked away and a moment later I heard something fall and saw a part of the side mirror from a parked car on the ground. I did not see the car hit the mirror. Now, do I assume that the car hit the parked car, or was the damage prior to that and the sound the sound of the car running over the already broken piece of mirror?
The point of that story is that without knowing that I was perceiving something which might not be true, I would have assumed the car hit the other car. More likely what happened was that the car just ran over the already broken mirror. Not that it made much difference, I didn't have license plate number anyways, and I didn't actually see an accident.
Doesn't matter, it's still bunk. I hear a lot of creationists talk about macro evolution being unproven because it's easier to delude themselves into believing that it's not reliable. Few people believed that the world was flat in the 15th century, or at least few people who had the means to consider such things. It had long been settled by that time, the question they were unsure of was how long it would take to sail around the other way.
As for evolution, it's been adjusted, and only a nutter is going to suggest that it isn't pretty close. Up until this point nobody has been able to propose a better explanation than what is presently called evolution.
Plus WTF does killing scientists have to do with this?
It's really not strange to lump pro-lifers in with those anti-science nutters. They frequently take the position that a fetus is a person complete with all that entails and that a fetus exists from conception. Such a clumping of cells isn't any more a person than that wart I had removed was.
A person is entitled to have an opinion on that issue, but rewriting our knowledge to suit somebody that's probably too stupid to recognize that IVF results in far more embryos being disposed of than abortion on a per instance basis.
At the college level there's a lot they can do. Mandate that any textbooks have an ebook equivalent and that the ebook be available without DRM. The larger the number of books being sold, the more pull a school has.
We've got a similar problem here in Seattle. The school system is broken, but rather than look to fix the parts that are broken, the board and superintendent will almost certainly choose to go to the other extreme. If we were doing a lot of integrative fuzzy stuff, soon we'll be doing rote memorization, and back and forth. This sounds a bit like that, trying to use technology to fill a whole which might better be filled spending the same amount of money on tutors or resources to help the students learn the materials. Curriculum development and training for staff also might not be a bad idea.
I don't know how much the iPads would cost, but you can get a lot out of well chosen training programs for staff.
Especially if it provided the necessary citations in a convenient manner. I was just looking at Barnes & Noble's etextbook software. Seems to do quite a bit. I'm not likely to consider it as my netbook is somewhat anemic and I doubt the prices are reasonable, but it's far more reasonable to buy a $500 laptop than a similarly priced iPad. You just get so much more, and you end up with a device that you can actually write papers on. $500 for a laptop these days gets you quite a bit.
I realize that conservatives think that, but what about all that DoD spending, farm subsidies and tax breaks for the rich? You don't honestly think that the money is free do you? And perhaps if businesses would pay a living wage to workers there wouldn't be so much reliance on government to make up the difference.
But no, you're right, gubmint money is free money.
But even according to the article, this is supplementary. Meaning that it doesn't replace the laptop that the student probably already owns and likely won't do much for the cost of text books. Additionally, if you're looking for savings, the only savings that I see is the savings on chiropractic visits when your back gets bent out of shape from carrying books around.
At this stage, I don't personally see any reason why a school should go out and buy the iPads for the students. Seems to me to be a waste of student fees and/or taxpayer dollars. Now, in the future when they cost less, can do more and there's a legitimate need, then perhaps it will be time to consider the matter. Right now though it's a waste of money that could be spent on more important things.
I'm not sure about Australia, but up here in the US, a lot of that gets written off to scholarships, assuming you're lucky enough to get one. So, the prices of education keep going up and the politicians keep assuming that it's only the rich that can't get scholarships.
But if you can't get a scholarship what you end up with is a massive amount of loans and probably a hard time actually paying them back since a bachelor's degree is mostly about making a bit over minimum wage.
Because these students probably already own laptops, and at any rate does this school not have any computer labs? If you're just wanting text books, there are much cheaper options available. I'm not sure why one ought to own an iPad and a laptop, or more specifically why one ought to be required to get an iPad when a laptop is a more general tool. I just can't imagine typing up a ten page report on an iPad.
Moreover there are better products for just reading ebooks, albeit mostly in black and white.
This is a pretty bad argument to make. I've never heard of an illicit meth dealer that was following all of the best practices for the industry. I've yet to encounter one that was being inspected by the FDA as is the case.
Pharmaceutical corporations are necessary, unless you've got an alternate means of getting medication that they haven't produced at some point past or future. They also happen to develop nearly all the medications that are on the market.
Additionally, it's more than just product information, you've got no way of knowing what's actually in it, nobody has verified any of the batches, you don't have any sort of guidance, consequently it's significantly more dangerous, even if it's the same chemical.
I've found that often times insightful and informative things get modded troll because the moderator doesn't want to admit that perhaps the poster had a point. I know there's a lot of people who feel entitled to be complete dickheads, but aren't trolls per se, they just genuinely don't know that their full of it and demonstrably so.
I'd wager that it's more common for trolls to have a personality disorder, which is a completely different thing altogether. You're not going to have any luck treating them, especially if they don't want to be treated. Additionally, it offers them all knew forms and opportunities for trolling.
It's what BF Skinner would have advocated for in this situation. Admittedly that's putting words in his mouth, but refusing to give a troll any sort of reward is the best way of extinguishing the behavior. The reality is that most of these trolls don't have any idea whether or not you clicked the link. It's not their website they're linking to and they've no idea whether you've read their "nigger installation" instructions and if you have what you felt about it.
He was using the proceeds of his criminal enterprise to buy comic books, some of the larger sales apparently attracted some attention and upon investigation it was determined where the money was coming from. It has to be settled in court whether or not he's guilty, but assuming he is, this is standard procedure. Criminals aren't typically allowed to profit from their crimes by buying things.
Anytime you have a large number of people who are that self centered you end up where we are currently. The reality is that it's as much the drug users that are causing the problems as the prohibitionists. Pretending otherwise is pretty dishonest, if you buy drugs you're likely to be funding narco-terrorism. I mean where precisely do you think the drug cartels get their money from?
Suggesting that it's more the prohibitionists fault than the people who are buying the banned substances is questionable at best. The fact that a lot of people don't think that the law applies to them isn't a rational basis for suggesting a repeal is in order.
The fact that there are presumably in the near future going to be $500k worth of comic books going up on government auction. It doesn't sound like these were seized for evidence, but were being seized as spoils of crime. They'll get auctioned off and I'll wager a lot of/. posters will be interested.
The question though is why this is a YRO story. It happened in real life and not online, it's been well established that the government can seize property purchased with stolen or otherwise illegally obtained money.
Actually, you shouldn't lump the 4 boxes comment in with the rest of them, it's a legitimate observation. The main disagreement is over how long to wait before transitioning to the next box, and what precisely justifies doing so. But it is absolutely correct, one shouldn't overthrow the government when lesser measures will fix the problem, and one shouldn't use a soap box when only force will solve it.
That's not true. When people say meth they mean something that's cooked up by somebody without any quality controls and it's really not the same thing as the chemical equivalent produced by pharmaceutical corporations. Suggesting this is a tug-o-war about legitimate distribution completely misses the point. There is no QA that goes into street drugs, no screenings about medical necessity, counter indications or any way of knowing how big the effective dosage is. And the main goal of the dealer is to get the buyer hooked.
It's a very different case on either side, and trivializing it isn't helping anybody out.
Sequencing has been where the focus on cost has been going. It doesn't make much sense to try and reduce the cost of analysis when it takes a very long time and a huge amount of money to accomplish. The graph was hard to read, but at this point with the cost well over $10k there's a lot more that has to be done before analysis is worth spending a lot of time economizing.
But as it gets cheaper more and more of the focus will be on the analysis side. And the cost of analysis will come down, given that insurance isn't going to cover the sequencing at this point, analysis is moot in most cases. As more research analyzes sequenced DNA I'm sure tricks and such will be discovered to bring the cost down. But right now you're dealing with low volumes and as such cost is higher than it will be with higher volumes.
It's not idiotic, just look at all the damage that Apple has done to the electronics market. Now, people no longer expect to own their devices, and look who is prominently pushing for increased control of the customer's products, well if it isn't Steve Jobs.
They've been getting more and more into undermining consumer rights for years, that alone justifies being called evil.
And yes, I know what evil means, somebody posted a definition earlier in the thread and this definitely qualifies.
But then again, I doubt very much that you're capable of acknowledging that Steve Jobs isn't God and that Apple isn't perfect.
That's a really trollish comment to make. Apple has the ability to do that because Steve Jobs completely controls the product line. Google has very little control over what the handset manufacturers do, which is one of the reasons that they had to introduce the Nexus line to push for some hardware improvements. Plus in the majority of cases a phone won't upgrade because you bought a locked phone from the carrier, Google has little to no control over that.
Plus, if you're handset won't upgrade, you can at least get updates for that for as long as somebody is willing to keep patching the old version, lets see somebody do that with their iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
That's typical from my experience. It is somewhat understandable, there often times aren't the resources to look at thousands of applications in greater depth. But allowing HR to make those sorts of decisions is an excellent way of ensuring that you don't employ any actual competent professionals.
You really have to do your research, an institution should be accredited, and receive the accreditation from a respected body. If it's not accredited, you really shouldn't even consider going there as there's no ability to transfer the credits and little assurance that the paper will be worth anything at all to anybody.
But just because a college is accredited by a recognized body doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to count, if the accreditation isn't by the right body, you might not be able to get money back from employee development programs.
And just because an institution isn't itself accredited, doesn't mean that it isn't legit. My current schooling is being done through a small private school which issues credits through an accredited institution. The coursework itself is legitimate and very hard, but they don't have the resources to issue the credits directly.
That's the problem, there is no guarantee of funding for controversial research. It doesn't matter how legitimate the research might be, if it looks like it might challenge somebody important you might not be able to get funding. Likewise if you're just looking to replicate results, it's easier to get money to do new research.
It's not good, but that's reality. Do research that's unpopular and you might not be able to get any money at all in the future.
The two are related, the main issue is that at some point something becomes likely enough to acknowledge. It really is true that you can't be certain of anything, everything gets filtered before we become cognizant of it, however, in order to get anything done you do need to have some willingness to go with things on surface value.
Last week I was driving and I saw a car trying to squeeze through a tight spot to turn right. I looked away and a moment later I heard something fall and saw a part of the side mirror from a parked car on the ground. I did not see the car hit the mirror. Now, do I assume that the car hit the parked car, or was the damage prior to that and the sound the sound of the car running over the already broken piece of mirror?
The point of that story is that without knowing that I was perceiving something which might not be true, I would have assumed the car hit the other car. More likely what happened was that the car just ran over the already broken mirror. Not that it made much difference, I didn't have license plate number anyways, and I didn't actually see an accident.
Doesn't matter, it's still bunk. I hear a lot of creationists talk about macro evolution being unproven because it's easier to delude themselves into believing that it's not reliable. Few people believed that the world was flat in the 15th century, or at least few people who had the means to consider such things. It had long been settled by that time, the question they were unsure of was how long it would take to sail around the other way.
As for evolution, it's been adjusted, and only a nutter is going to suggest that it isn't pretty close. Up until this point nobody has been able to propose a better explanation than what is presently called evolution.
Plus WTF does killing scientists have to do with this?
It's really not strange to lump pro-lifers in with those anti-science nutters. They frequently take the position that a fetus is a person complete with all that entails and that a fetus exists from conception. Such a clumping of cells isn't any more a person than that wart I had removed was.
A person is entitled to have an opinion on that issue, but rewriting our knowledge to suit somebody that's probably too stupid to recognize that IVF results in far more embryos being disposed of than abortion on a per instance basis.
At the college level there's a lot they can do. Mandate that any textbooks have an ebook equivalent and that the ebook be available without DRM. The larger the number of books being sold, the more pull a school has.
We've got a similar problem here in Seattle. The school system is broken, but rather than look to fix the parts that are broken, the board and superintendent will almost certainly choose to go to the other extreme. If we were doing a lot of integrative fuzzy stuff, soon we'll be doing rote memorization, and back and forth. This sounds a bit like that, trying to use technology to fill a whole which might better be filled spending the same amount of money on tutors or resources to help the students learn the materials. Curriculum development and training for staff also might not be a bad idea.
I don't know how much the iPads would cost, but you can get a lot out of well chosen training programs for staff.
Especially if it provided the necessary citations in a convenient manner. I was just looking at Barnes & Noble's etextbook software. Seems to do quite a bit. I'm not likely to consider it as my netbook is somewhat anemic and I doubt the prices are reasonable, but it's far more reasonable to buy a $500 laptop than a similarly priced iPad. You just get so much more, and you end up with a device that you can actually write papers on. $500 for a laptop these days gets you quite a bit.
I realize that conservatives think that, but what about all that DoD spending, farm subsidies and tax breaks for the rich? You don't honestly think that the money is free do you? And perhaps if businesses would pay a living wage to workers there wouldn't be so much reliance on government to make up the difference.
But no, you're right, gubmint money is free money.
But even according to the article, this is supplementary. Meaning that it doesn't replace the laptop that the student probably already owns and likely won't do much for the cost of text books. Additionally, if you're looking for savings, the only savings that I see is the savings on chiropractic visits when your back gets bent out of shape from carrying books around.
At this stage, I don't personally see any reason why a school should go out and buy the iPads for the students. Seems to me to be a waste of student fees and/or taxpayer dollars. Now, in the future when they cost less, can do more and there's a legitimate need, then perhaps it will be time to consider the matter. Right now though it's a waste of money that could be spent on more important things.
I'm not sure about Australia, but up here in the US, a lot of that gets written off to scholarships, assuming you're lucky enough to get one. So, the prices of education keep going up and the politicians keep assuming that it's only the rich that can't get scholarships.
But if you can't get a scholarship what you end up with is a massive amount of loans and probably a hard time actually paying them back since a bachelor's degree is mostly about making a bit over minimum wage.
Because these students probably already own laptops, and at any rate does this school not have any computer labs? If you're just wanting text books, there are much cheaper options available. I'm not sure why one ought to own an iPad and a laptop, or more specifically why one ought to be required to get an iPad when a laptop is a more general tool. I just can't imagine typing up a ten page report on an iPad.
Moreover there are better products for just reading ebooks, albeit mostly in black and white.
This is a pretty bad argument to make. I've never heard of an illicit meth dealer that was following all of the best practices for the industry. I've yet to encounter one that was being inspected by the FDA as is the case.
Pharmaceutical corporations are necessary, unless you've got an alternate means of getting medication that they haven't produced at some point past or future. They also happen to develop nearly all the medications that are on the market.
Additionally, it's more than just product information, you've got no way of knowing what's actually in it, nobody has verified any of the batches, you don't have any sort of guidance, consequently it's significantly more dangerous, even if it's the same chemical.
I've found that often times insightful and informative things get modded troll because the moderator doesn't want to admit that perhaps the poster had a point. I know there's a lot of people who feel entitled to be complete dickheads, but aren't trolls per se, they just genuinely don't know that their full of it and demonstrably so.
I'd wager that it's more common for trolls to have a personality disorder, which is a completely different thing altogether. You're not going to have any luck treating them, especially if they don't want to be treated. Additionally, it offers them all knew forms and opportunities for trolling.
It's what BF Skinner would have advocated for in this situation. Admittedly that's putting words in his mouth, but refusing to give a troll any sort of reward is the best way of extinguishing the behavior. The reality is that most of these trolls don't have any idea whether or not you clicked the link. It's not their website they're linking to and they've no idea whether you've read their "nigger installation" instructions and if you have what you felt about it.
He was using the proceeds of his criminal enterprise to buy comic books, some of the larger sales apparently attracted some attention and upon investigation it was determined where the money was coming from. It has to be settled in court whether or not he's guilty, but assuming he is, this is standard procedure. Criminals aren't typically allowed to profit from their crimes by buying things.
Anytime you have a large number of people who are that self centered you end up where we are currently. The reality is that it's as much the drug users that are causing the problems as the prohibitionists. Pretending otherwise is pretty dishonest, if you buy drugs you're likely to be funding narco-terrorism. I mean where precisely do you think the drug cartels get their money from?
Suggesting that it's more the prohibitionists fault than the people who are buying the banned substances is questionable at best. The fact that a lot of people don't think that the law applies to them isn't a rational basis for suggesting a repeal is in order.
The fact that there are presumably in the near future going to be $500k worth of comic books going up on government auction. It doesn't sound like these were seized for evidence, but were being seized as spoils of crime. They'll get auctioned off and I'll wager a lot of /. posters will be interested.
The question though is why this is a YRO story. It happened in real life and not online, it's been well established that the government can seize property purchased with stolen or otherwise illegally obtained money.
Actually, you shouldn't lump the 4 boxes comment in with the rest of them, it's a legitimate observation. The main disagreement is over how long to wait before transitioning to the next box, and what precisely justifies doing so. But it is absolutely correct, one shouldn't overthrow the government when lesser measures will fix the problem, and one shouldn't use a soap box when only force will solve it.
That's not true. When people say meth they mean something that's cooked up by somebody without any quality controls and it's really not the same thing as the chemical equivalent produced by pharmaceutical corporations. Suggesting this is a tug-o-war about legitimate distribution completely misses the point. There is no QA that goes into street drugs, no screenings about medical necessity, counter indications or any way of knowing how big the effective dosage is. And the main goal of the dealer is to get the buyer hooked.
It's a very different case on either side, and trivializing it isn't helping anybody out.
Sequencing has been where the focus on cost has been going. It doesn't make much sense to try and reduce the cost of analysis when it takes a very long time and a huge amount of money to accomplish. The graph was hard to read, but at this point with the cost well over $10k there's a lot more that has to be done before analysis is worth spending a lot of time economizing.
But as it gets cheaper more and more of the focus will be on the analysis side. And the cost of analysis will come down, given that insurance isn't going to cover the sequencing at this point, analysis is moot in most cases. As more research analyzes sequenced DNA I'm sure tricks and such will be discovered to bring the cost down. But right now you're dealing with low volumes and as such cost is higher than it will be with higher volumes.
It's not idiotic, just look at all the damage that Apple has done to the electronics market. Now, people no longer expect to own their devices, and look who is prominently pushing for increased control of the customer's products, well if it isn't Steve Jobs.
They've been getting more and more into undermining consumer rights for years, that alone justifies being called evil.
And yes, I know what evil means, somebody posted a definition earlier in the thread and this definitely qualifies.
But then again, I doubt very much that you're capable of acknowledging that Steve Jobs isn't God and that Apple isn't perfect.
That's a really trollish comment to make. Apple has the ability to do that because Steve Jobs completely controls the product line. Google has very little control over what the handset manufacturers do, which is one of the reasons that they had to introduce the Nexus line to push for some hardware improvements. Plus in the majority of cases a phone won't upgrade because you bought a locked phone from the carrier, Google has little to no control over that.
Plus, if you're handset won't upgrade, you can at least get updates for that for as long as somebody is willing to keep patching the old version, lets see somebody do that with their iPhone.