However, why are economists studying this and why is anyone lending the study credence?
Why wouldn't they? Do economists not understand mathematical models? Do they not understand statistics? They don't have a good grasp of how to properly stratify income groups? Or is it impossible for an economist to specialize in the area of education? I think a far more likely explanation is that you just don't generally understand economics.
In fact, did you even read his CV before making such a statement? Ofer Malamud is an education specialist.
Just a sampling of paper titles:
“General Education vs. Vocational Training: Evidence from an Economy in Transition"
“The Structure of European Higher Education in the Wake of the Bologna Reforms"
“Breadth vs. Depth: The Timing of Specialization in Higher Education"
I would address your snake-oil comment, but you apparently hold up sociology as more scientifically rigorous. I don't see much hope for you.
Poison and toxic in large enough quantities is the same thing.
Fixed that for you.
What we label is largely arbitrary. Many detractors label marijuana poison but do you know how much you have to smoke to overdose on THC? Hint: It takes a lot more time and effort than achieving toxicity from water.
For every uninformed church-going conservative, there's an uninformed liberal who watched Al Gore's movie, believes everything in it without question, and thinks all changes in climate are due to human activity while ignoring the biggest producer of greenhouse gases--the earth itself.
Except the earth, in its state before human civilization, was largely able to compensate for what it produced (catastrophic extinction-level events aside; since I'm guessing we'd like to avoid those today as well). Plants need CO2, an abundance of CO2 meant more plants. Then human civilization began blossoming, which started by clearing forests, which reduced the ability of the earth to compensate for itself. Then industry began blossoming, which introduced more CO2 into the atmosphere than the species of earth had ever evolved to compensate for.
What you're ignoring is that anything our technologically-inflated population produces is not part of the natural cycle that kept itself in check. It doesn't matter how much we actually contribute in relation to the rest of the earth, what matters is that we tipped the scale.
Indeed. They should be asking for donated server administration, bandwidth, and legal services. Not for cash.
While pro-bono legal work (I'll concede donated servers would probably be beneficial) is often a lovely way to accomplish short-term tasks and projects, it really pales in comparison to cash when you actually need to accomplish or defend against something significant. The majority of law firms only set aside so many billable hours per year for pro-bono work, and they rarely dedicate that all to one client.
So you either end up with a soup of lawyers without leadership contributing sub-par work, or you end up needing to pay the guys who took your case and no longer have the luxury of ditching revenue on you.
It's not unreasonable to ask for donations in order to continue providing service, especially if your service is intended to be free for the vast majority to use.
Other people have translated the same word in the bible during various generations to mean: masturbater, adulterer, promiscuous man, and male prostitute. There are likely others that nobody really knows about.
I find pretty much all of these just as likely as the other, especially since Paul never references any other material to supply additional context, nor does he really bring up the word again in a different fashion so that we can adequately compare. Just because you live in a societal context where many biblical interpretations are anti-homosexual doesn't make it any more likely to be accurate. Hell, Michel de Montaigne wrote about witnessing a church-sanctioned gay marriage during the 1500s. If the biblical scholars at that time were convinced homosexuality was wrong then I think that would have been difficult to pull off, much less document.
Even the new testament criticizes homosexual relationships
While I definitely accept this as one possibility. I have a problem with people stating it as fact. From what we know, all references to homosexuality were written by Paul and were originally put down in Greek. The Greek language did not actually have a word for homosexual at the time so Paul utilized two different ones. The first one was Pederraste (meaning Pedophile) which definitely raises concerns about how it was translated to an entirely different word: 'homosexual'.
The second word used is arsenokoitai (spelling probably terrible), which Paul actually just made up, and didn't explicate further. It literally translates as "man bed". While I can accept that someone might utilize those terms to create a word for homosexual, I do not think it makes sense to say it conclusively.
So as far as I'm concerned, the New Testament says nothing of note about homosexuality.
PS - Not a Christian, just a textual analysis nerd.
If you are going to be this literal when reading the bible, then it actually serves as a contract between yourself and god, not yourself and your spouse. So yes, if you commit adultery you are a sinner, but you by no means had that same obligation to your spouse.
Throughout their lives, the vast majority of us humans cheat at least once. If we'd really kill everyone that does, we'd have a highly effective technique for population control on our hands.
Either that or breeding a superior (?) race of serial monogamists.
It might not be within the strictest interpretation of their (NA's) charter, but I think its certainly within the spirit of their mission.
THIS does not happen enough in the Federal Government. 95% of the time when an agency is in need of a skillset that is outside its purview (or sometimes within its purview, but present in a different department), it contracts it out to some third party vendor with questionable skills and typically high prices. Every federal agency should be ready to consult for other agencies when its primary skills are in need, but it almost never happens that way.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You would think that the first sentence would do it, but SCOTUS basically neutered that. However, SCOTUS has ruled that the due process clause from this amendment functionally applies the freedom of speech to the state governments. (Gitlow v. New York)
What incentive does a company have to put that kind of investment into something, if they think they can just rip it off of someone else for free?
You're trolling, right? Their incentive is MONEY. The onus is just on the company, and not the government, to protect it.
Many companies today choose to forgo the patent system and keep their methods protected through Trade Secret. The idea is pretty simple: Protect your own information, if someone reverse engineers or develops it in parallel, tough luck. If someone outright steals it from your files, they're liable.
It depends on the sort of work that is available. Older people are certainly good for a certain things: Ideas? Sure. Concepts? Of course. Writing the code to see those in the latest "in" language? Not probably so much.
A multi-decade grasp of the concepts of programming is actually quite useful for the writing of code in any language. If my dad (been a software engineer most of his adult life) cracks open a book about the latest "in" language right after breakfast, he's pretty comfortably coding in it and incorporating it based on his clients' needs by lunchtime. I've even picked up on it a bit, and I'm not even a software engineer.
Broadcast it over an open unsecured network to everyone within 100 metres and you're making it public.
Maybe to you, but the general public expects privacy when in their homes and typing information into a password box that explicitly hides the keystrokes they type in.
You try to compare this to wiretapping but this is no more wiretapping than walking through a mall with your camcorder on videotaping your friends/child/dog/whatever.
You will pick up snatches of private conversation on your audio track but just because you picked up the words "...and pick up the hemaroid cream fro...." and "...have to put her into a hom..." from converasations you passed that is not the same as putting a tap on the phones of the people you passed or bugging their homes.
How is this even comparable? If you're having a conversation at the mall, you have absolutely no expectation of a private conversation. I might have some expectation that almost nobody will care about my hemorrhoid cream but no sane individual should expect any legal protections of their privacy if they announce that in a public place. Doing something from the privacy of your home, however, does give you legal expectations of privacy.
The relative ease or difficulty of eavesdropping technology can and absolutely should be used as a defense of the practice of eavesdropping random tiny snatches of publicly broadcast information.
How is this even coherent? I can legally eavesdrop on your conversation just because my technical expertise made it easy to do so? How is this not exactly like wiretapping? Sorry, the fact is that that Google had to activate the technology that collected this information, and it was designed to collect it. Just because Google wasn't explicitly interested in people's passwords shouldn't make this action legal. Otherwise any company collecting this information for less legitimate reasons could make the same claim.
If you want privacy you have to at least use symbolic security or people will breach your "privacy" without noticing it:
WEP, a sealed envelope etc.
They were, it's called a password box. You may know better but the general public believes that this is all they need.
"You can only use your car for 20km per month, and only on BP fuel, after which you have to pay a premium set by . Fee is subject to change without notice. Excess fuel can not be carried over to following months."
"You can only use your car for 20km per month, and only on BP fuel, after which you have to pay a premium set by [Car Manufacturer]. Fee is subject to change without notice. Excess fuel can not be carried over to following months."
Hey! You can't change my terms after the fa... Oh... I see what you did there.
they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is
HEADLINE: TODAY'S DENIED FOIA REQUESTS
Request 1: I would like a copy of President Barack Obama's Birth Certificate Reason: It's held by the state of Hawaii
Request 2: I would like a copy of Barack Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Reason: It's held by the state of Hawaii
Request 3: I would like a copy of the secret Muslim's Birth Certificate Reason: Seriously?
Request 4: Please send me a copy of Josef Stalin Obama's birth certificate. Reason: Goddammit I hate my life...
Request 5: I'd like the recipe used for ham and cheese burritos in the House of Representatives Cafeteria. Reason: I can tell you right now, it's ham and cheese in a tortilla.
That is to say, the findings aren't based on survey data of kids' game habits, but instead on a specific group of children that were randomly assigned to receive a PlayStation or not
There are a couple things wrong here, for some reason I don't necessarily believe that the control group is without video games, it just possibly has a slightly lower occurrence of them. The only thing the experimental group has noticeably more of is Playstations. Conclusion: Sony causes learning disabilities.
Through other correlative studies, we know that video games do not hinder other types of development (such as determining whether a kid is obese or not), but we do know that when you put a TV in a kid's room, their rate of childhood obesity skyrockets.
Wait... what's that? You need a television to use a Playstation!?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I am amazed that this was not invented till now. Me and my friends were discussing the same thing - IIRC - about 3 years ago?
Shoulda made one, no snazzy patent for you!
However, why are economists studying this and why is anyone lending the study credence?
Why wouldn't they? Do economists not understand mathematical models? Do they not understand statistics? They don't have a good grasp of how to properly stratify income groups? Or is it impossible for an economist to specialize in the area of education? I think a far more likely explanation is that you just don't generally understand economics.
In fact, did you even read his CV before making such a statement? Ofer Malamud is an education specialist.
Just a sampling of paper titles:
“General Education vs. Vocational Training: Evidence from an Economy in Transition"
“The Structure of European Higher Education in the Wake of the Bologna Reforms"
“Breadth vs. Depth: The Timing of Specialization in Higher Education"
I would address your snake-oil comment, but you apparently hold up sociology as more scientifically rigorous. I don't see much hope for you.
I would love to see those sweet pictures...
Asteroids are so much hotter once they can drink legally.
It's too bad that Lutetia still can't rent a car...
Poison and toxic in large enough quantities is the same thing.
Fixed that for you.
What we label is largely arbitrary. Many detractors label marijuana poison but do you know how much you have to smoke to overdose on THC? Hint: It takes a lot more time and effort than achieving toxicity from water.
For every uninformed church-going conservative, there's an uninformed liberal who watched Al Gore's movie, believes everything in it without question, and thinks all changes in climate are due to human activity while ignoring the biggest producer of greenhouse gases--the earth itself.
Except the earth, in its state before human civilization, was largely able to compensate for what it produced (catastrophic extinction-level events aside; since I'm guessing we'd like to avoid those today as well). Plants need CO2, an abundance of CO2 meant more plants. Then human civilization began blossoming, which started by clearing forests, which reduced the ability of the earth to compensate for itself. Then industry began blossoming, which introduced more CO2 into the atmosphere than the species of earth had ever evolved to compensate for.
What you're ignoring is that anything our technologically-inflated population produces is not part of the natural cycle that kept itself in check. It doesn't matter how much we actually contribute in relation to the rest of the earth, what matters is that we tipped the scale.
Don't let BP touch them... We'll have to send Bruce Willis into space to clean up their mess.
Indeed. They should be asking for donated server administration, bandwidth, and legal services. Not for cash.
While pro-bono legal work (I'll concede donated servers would probably be beneficial) is often a lovely way to accomplish short-term tasks and projects, it really pales in comparison to cash when you actually need to accomplish or defend against something significant. The majority of law firms only set aside so many billable hours per year for pro-bono work, and they rarely dedicate that all to one client.
So you either end up with a soup of lawyers without leadership contributing sub-par work, or you end up needing to pay the guys who took your case and no longer have the luxury of ditching revenue on you.
It's not unreasonable to ask for donations in order to continue providing service, especially if your service is intended to be free for the vast majority to use.
The kid was probably plotting to wire a case of mentos and coca-cola to drench his neighborhood in sudsy death...
"Man bed" seems pretty clear cut to me..
Other people have translated the same word in the bible during various generations to mean: masturbater, adulterer, promiscuous man, and male prostitute. There are likely others that nobody really knows about.
I find pretty much all of these just as likely as the other, especially since Paul never references any other material to supply additional context, nor does he really bring up the word again in a different fashion so that we can adequately compare. Just because you live in a societal context where many biblical interpretations are anti-homosexual doesn't make it any more likely to be accurate. Hell, Michel de Montaigne wrote about witnessing a church-sanctioned gay marriage during the 1500s. If the biblical scholars at that time were convinced homosexuality was wrong then I think that would have been difficult to pull off, much less document.
Even the new testament criticizes homosexual relationships
While I definitely accept this as one possibility. I have a problem with people stating it as fact. From what we know, all references to homosexuality were written by Paul and were originally put down in Greek. The Greek language did not actually have a word for homosexual at the time so Paul utilized two different ones. The first one was Pederraste (meaning Pedophile) which definitely raises concerns about how it was translated to an entirely different word: 'homosexual'.
The second word used is arsenokoitai (spelling probably terrible), which Paul actually just made up, and didn't explicate further. It literally translates as "man bed". While I can accept that someone might utilize those terms to create a word for homosexual, I do not think it makes sense to say it conclusively.
So as far as I'm concerned, the New Testament says nothing of note about homosexuality.
PS - Not a Christian, just a textual analysis nerd.
If you are going to be this literal when reading the bible, then it actually serves as a contract between yourself and god, not yourself and your spouse. So yes, if you commit adultery you are a sinner, but you by no means had that same obligation to your spouse.
Throughout their lives, the vast majority of us humans cheat at least once. If we'd really kill everyone that does, we'd have a highly effective technique for population control on our hands.
Either that or breeding a superior (?) race of serial monogamists.
It might not be within the strictest interpretation of their (NA's) charter, but I think its certainly within the spirit of their mission.
THIS does not happen enough in the Federal Government. 95% of the time when an agency is in need of a skillset that is outside its purview (or sometimes within its purview, but present in a different department), it contracts it out to some third party vendor with questionable skills and typically high prices. Every federal agency should be ready to consult for other agencies when its primary skills are in need, but it almost never happens that way.
Amendment 14, Section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You would think that the first sentence would do it, but SCOTUS basically neutered that. However, SCOTUS has ruled that the due process clause from this amendment functionally applies the freedom of speech to the state governments. (Gitlow v. New York)
What incentive does a company have to put that kind of investment into something, if they think they can just rip it off of someone else for free?
You're trolling, right? Their incentive is MONEY. The onus is just on the company, and not the government, to protect it.
Many companies today choose to forgo the patent system and keep their methods protected through Trade Secret. The idea is pretty simple: Protect your own information, if someone reverse engineers or develops it in parallel, tough luck. If someone outright steals it from your files, they're liable.
It depends on the sort of work that is available. Older people are certainly good for a certain things: Ideas? Sure. Concepts? Of course. Writing the code to see those in the latest "in" language? Not probably so much.
A multi-decade grasp of the concepts of programming is actually quite useful for the writing of code in any language. If my dad (been a software engineer most of his adult life) cracks open a book about the latest "in" language right after breakfast, he's pretty comfortably coding in it and incorporating it based on his clients' needs by lunchtime. I've even picked up on it a bit, and I'm not even a software engineer.
Broadcast it over an open unsecured network to everyone within 100 metres and you're making it public.
Maybe to you, but the general public expects privacy when in their homes and typing information into a password box that explicitly hides the keystrokes they type in.
You try to compare this to wiretapping but this is no more wiretapping than walking through a mall with your camcorder on videotaping your friends/child/dog/whatever.
You will pick up snatches of private conversation on your audio track but just because you picked up the words "...and pick up the hemaroid cream fro...." and "...have to put her into a hom..." from converasations you passed that is not the same as putting a tap on the phones of the people you passed or bugging their homes.
How is this even comparable? If you're having a conversation at the mall, you have absolutely no expectation of a private conversation. I might have some expectation that almost nobody will care about my hemorrhoid cream but no sane individual should expect any legal protections of their privacy if they announce that in a public place. Doing something from the privacy of your home, however, does give you legal expectations of privacy.
The relative ease or difficulty of eavesdropping technology can and absolutely should be used as a defense of the practice of eavesdropping random tiny snatches of publicly broadcast information.
How is this even coherent? I can legally eavesdrop on your conversation just because my technical expertise made it easy to do so? How is this not exactly like wiretapping? Sorry, the fact is that that Google had to activate the technology that collected this information, and it was designed to collect it. Just because Google wasn't explicitly interested in people's passwords shouldn't make this action legal. Otherwise any company collecting this information for less legitimate reasons could make the same claim.
If you want privacy you have to at least use symbolic security or people will breach your "privacy" without noticing it: WEP, a sealed envelope etc.
They were, it's called a password box. You may know better but the general public believes that this is all they need.
"You can only use your car for 20km per month, and only on BP fuel, after which you have to pay a premium set by . Fee is subject to change without notice. Excess fuel can not be carried over to following months."
"You can only use your car for 20km per month, and only on BP fuel, after which you have to pay a premium set by [Car Manufacturer]. Fee is subject to change without notice. Excess fuel can not be carried over to following months."
Hey! You can't change my terms after the fa... Oh... I see what you did there.
Well played... ;P
they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is
HEADLINE: TODAY'S DENIED FOIA REQUESTS
Request 1: I would like a copy of President Barack Obama's Birth Certificate
Reason: It's held by the state of Hawaii
Request 2: I would like a copy of Barack Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate
Reason: It's held by the state of Hawaii
Request 3: I would like a copy of the secret Muslim's Birth Certificate
Reason: Seriously?
Request 4: Please send me a copy of Josef Stalin Obama's birth certificate.
Reason: Goddammit I hate my life...
Request 5: I'd like the recipe used for ham and cheese burritos in the House of Representatives Cafeteria.
Reason: I can tell you right now, it's ham and cheese in a tortilla.
That is to say, the findings aren't based on survey data of kids' game habits, but instead on a specific group of children that were randomly assigned to receive a PlayStation or not
There are a couple things wrong here, for some reason I don't necessarily believe that the control group is without video games, it just possibly has a slightly lower occurrence of them. The only thing the experimental group has noticeably more of is Playstations. Conclusion: Sony causes learning disabilities.
Through other correlative studies, we know that video games do not hinder other types of development (such as determining whether a kid is obese or not), but we do know that when you put a TV in a kid's room, their rate of childhood obesity skyrockets.
Wait... what's that? You need a television to use a Playstation!?
New York State Assembly members are idiots! More at 11.
There, fixed that for you. In this situation I believe specificity is warranted.
Most dysfunctional legislature... ever!
matter
matter
matter
You're all overloading my brain with almost-puns... now I can't distinguish the funny posts from ones with valid points!
Redmond sucks. Seattle doesn't.
Leave it to /. to mod this insightful. Full of M$ hatred.
I'll live forever if I eat babies?
Are you sure you want to be that young? I'll stick to eating 18-year-old blond women.
If this line of reasoning continues it's only going to get creepier.
Now fusion energy is only 10 years away!
They'll probably delay it just to build up the hype... or some lizard will get into the lab during an experiment and come out as godzilla. Either or.