Athletic scholarships at American universities are almost entirely funded by alumni. These athletic scholarships aren't taking away any money from academic scholarships.
stop shitting up education for future generations.
I'm just curious how you're coming to this conclusion. How are athletes "shitting up" education? Are they somehow bringing everyone else down? Is the quality of education suffering at universities with high power athletic teams? Are more academically qualified applicants really being turned down? I think not; at a typical American public university with 20-40k students, maybe 500 of them are athletes. That's a pretty small percentage.
They may not take away scholarship funds but they take away enrollment slots in the school from someone who actually wants to be there to learn and not to place their entire future in the hands of professional sports scouts.
You're assuming that all college athletes a) don't care about academics, b) are worse students than the average non-athlete and c) all aspire to be professional athletes. This is only true for high profile sports programs, such as football and basketball. You're also assuming that somehow, athletes deny better academically qualified applicants. At my undergrad university, a NCAA D1 school, the average athlete GPA and graduation rate was higher than the school average.
And those are exactly the kind of people who should not be allowed within ten kilometers from any university. Then suddenly there would be enough scholarships available for people who actually can and want to study, as opposed to becoming an underpaid professional athlete with a student ID, and after retirement/graduation a fraud (and optionally a cripple).
Athletic scholarships at American universities are almost entirely funded by alumni. These athletic scholarships aren't taking away any money from academic scholarships.
I was on an athletic scholarship which gave me an undergraduate education at almost no cost. I had both a successful athletic and academic undergraduate career; however there aren't many well paid professional opportunities for track athletes, so with the additional encouragement of an injury, I had to give that part up. I'm now in a Computer Science PhD program with several first author publications in A-level conferences. Being an athlete taught me the discipline and time management skills that have allowed me to succeed as a graduate student. As an undergrad, I was always practicing or traveling to competitions, so I learned to spend every bit of free time studying. Now, in graduate school, I can't believe how lazy many of the other students are -- they have nothing else to do but study, yet they waste so much of their time shooting the breeze.
The lesson: only you can ensure the integrity and persistence of your data. If even your employer can't, then who can? Isn't that what he hired you to do? If he loses his data because he doesn't respect it, that's his problem, isn't it?
I don't quite understand your question. I'm not a system administrator, if that's what you mean. I'm a university employee; the system administrators in our department give us a small amount of space on one partition that's backed up. If we need more space, we use a non-backed up partition at our own peril. Conversely, I've also worked for a privately held corporation that was extremely diligent about backups, requiring us to use only company equipment for our work with everything backed up nightly. At the university, if I lose my data, I am the one who suffers most. At the company, if I lost my data, the company would probably suffer more.
No one is going to care as much about your data as you do. Next question please.
This. My employer only backs up one of several disk partitions on my work computer. The non-backed up partitions were hosed during a routine system upgrade last summer. Fortunately, I had backed up the data using my own resources but others hadn't and lost months of work.
The lesson: only you can ensure the integrity and persistence of your data. If even your employer can't, then who can?
you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.
Not only that, but remove primaries.
As an American, I think more countries (and the rest of the Canadian provinces too) should enact laws like this.
I recently applied for a job in Canada. The one I applied for as well as several others I saw said that precedent is given to Canadians over foreign nationals. I've never seen an American government or industry job make the same disclaimer. President is the only thing that comes to mind.
Uhhhhh - it's called "idiotic groupthink" because it is exactly that. The group decides what is good, and everyone conforms, or else. Kinda like in high school, where the most popular kid's ideas were always right, and the least popular kid's ideas were always wrong, no matter what the actual merits of the ideas.
It's probably a good thing that comments don't get moderated past +5.
This is a problem inherent with single-blind peer review. In the academic community, anonymous reviewers have the power to reject non-anonymous submissions simply because they don't like the author. Double blind reviews fix this, where both the reviewers and authors are unknown to each other, but it seems that most journals and conferences are single blind.
The solution to Slashdot would be to have a similar double blind system. If you wish to mod comments on a story, you shouldn't be able to see who the poster is. From the story link on the main page, you'll get an option to either comment on the story and see who the other commenters are or mod comments and not know who the authors are. If you choose the comment option, you won't be able to go back and mod later.
Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?
Gee, how fair-minded of you to propose that one tribe of people should be allowed more representation than others not in that tribe. Is that really your idea of equal representation?
In some cases, I'd say it's a lot more than twice the representation.
The CIA regularly hires history majors.
I attend a university with a particularly strong liberal arts program. Nearly all of my friends who were liberal arts majors (and graduated within the past 5 years) have been quickly scooped up by various government agencies in Washington.
One can be illegal, the other is upholding the law. It is going way out of bounds and probably can be fought in court if your employer attempts to control your non-work-related speech through threats about your salary. It is completely legal for Knopf Books to sue you into the ground for reproducing The Golden Compass without securing permission from them or the author. One is censorship, one is just called "suing".
Whether they are employees or not absolutely makes a difference, and you will note that the wikipedia article referenced explicitly mentioned categories of people who had a business relationship with the corporation. People who do not have a business relationship cannot be subject to "corporate censorship".
I'll concede that the definition of corporate censorship is too narrow for this case. However, this proposal affects more that just alleged copyright infringers which is why people have been screaming censorship. It provides the government with the power to shut down any site with ties to copyright infringement even though the vast majority of the content may not be infringing. When content is removed even though it wasn't infringing material, that is censorship. Corporations will now able to lean on the government to remove entire sites they don't like, not just content that may be in violation of copyright.
Furthermore, internet sites only need to be shut down with the consent of a judge. No trial, no settlements -- only a court order is needed to take a site offline. This is a serious stretch of due process as the accused loses his or her right to a trial. A party accused of infringement will have little defense to stop a site from being taken offline; the potential for abuse here is huge -- anything can be taken offline and there is almost nothing the accused can do to stop it. If you don't think this is censorship, I'd really like to know what your definition is.
Theyre talking about people who work for or are associated with the company-- that is, if your company told you "dont write a review of Brillo pads, or we will slash your salary". That would be corporate censorship.
RIAA / MPAA being litigious and nasty because people are pirating their stuff isnt censorship at all.
I don't see how these two are different. Based on their desire to maintain revenue and profits, these content industries are clamping down on those who don't follow their rules. Whether they are employees, customers, or just random individuals doesn't matter.
From Wikipedia:
"Corporate censorship is censorship by corporations, the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates by threat of monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace."
So yes, this is censorship.
I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.
