Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Guess what? (Score 1) 301

The comment you made that started this is:

If someone not only takes but advocates a strong position in the culture wars and then themselves violates that view, they deserve to be ridiculed for it. The view or position also deserves to be ridiculed.

Emphasis mine. So no, you are not just judging him for being a hypocrite for his actions, but also judging the moral position that he was failing to meet.

He deserves to be judged as imperfect, but ridiculing people because they are imperfect is, I fear, being hypocritical if one is not perfect oneself.

Comment Re:Ouch? (Score 1) 301

That depends. Did you actually plan to go through with the bank robbery?

The analogy was to the difference between physically sleeping with someone and just talking sex to them over the Internet (with a computer!). So yes, you actually did "plan to rob the bank" (talk sex).

I'm sure there are people who believe that even playfully flirting with someone else while you are in a committed relationship is infidelity.

Yeah. Sex chat lines make money off of people who are "playfully flirting." Sorry, it's not just flirting when you get to that level.

But it is entirely possible that at least some subset of users did it without any intention of being physically unfaithful.

And the point I made was that it really doesn't matter that much to many people if you are "physically unfaithful" or just having sex chats with strangers. Both are being unfaithful.

Comment Re:Guess what? (Score 4, Insightful) 301

If you will allow me a quote from the Bible, "Put not your trust in princes," ...

And "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As in, human beings are imperfect creatures, and you'll find many of them that haven't perfectly obeyed every principle they value.

Except the perfect people on /. who ridicule not only the imperfect people who can't manage perfection in following a moral standard, but the moral standard as well because it is followed by those imperfect people.

Comment Re:Ouch? (Score 1) 301

Using the site, making a keyboard connection with someone is not the same as rubbing genitals together with the risk of disease and adverse social interactions,

There are still a large number of people who believe that cheating is cheating and whether you're just talking dirty to someone or doing the dirty with them in person doesn't matter. People who value fidelity still exist.

It's like, if you rob a bank for real it's bank robbery, if you plan to do it it's conspiracy and you've still broken the law.

Comment Re:Stop providing tuition "assistance" (Score 1) 274

It ought to include more skilled trades, like plumbing, welding, construction, work that actually accomplishes something.

That's called "community college", and it already exists. And there's already moves to make that free.

It's not the job of a university to teach people how to weld or rewire their house to NEC standards.

Comment Re:Stop providing tuition "assistance" (Score 1) 274

The main point of high school in many places nowadays isn't to teach: it's too keep teenagers off the streets.

This is the main difference in education systems that makes other countries "free college" work for them. They require a bit more performance from their K-12 equivalent education system, so their colleges aren't just keeping Billy the potential dope dealer off the streets for four more years. They've got a prepared and ready occupant of that free college seat, and we've got people who need remedial math and English just to be able to perform at college freshman level.

Comment Re:Colleges are not for education (Score 1) 274

The other option for my kids would be the military. Would you prefer that?

Would I appreciate it if they served their country in the military? Sure. If they do, tell them "thank you" from me.

Would I prefer they go into the military than go to Germany? I don't really care. I'll just say "thank you" either way -- either for service to their country or by not expecting a taxpayer-funded education.

Comment Re:Tax it (Score 1) 274

That's probably the only way to ensure that money isn't horded, no matter who is doing the hording.

You don't understand what endowments are, or how the money is used.

First, the money is invested, so it is available for other people to borrow. It isn't just sitting in the basement of the admin building gathering dust.

Second, it is INTENDED to be a long-term, if not permanent, pot of money. That means you don't spend principle ever. You only spend the interest.

No, this is not "hoarding money".

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 274

So they are spending almost three times as much on bankers to keep their money safe than on the education of students!

They are spending money to bankers to manage the endowments so there is an appreciable rate of return on the investment that CAN be used to fund University operations. According to the summary, 17% of the endowment income went to student things. (Out of $1B, $170M.) The rest went to other University programs, like research, salaries, etc.

What you, and the people who call for a mandatory spending of 8% of an endowment, don't seem to understand is that endowments are supposed to be self-sustaining long-term things, and the INTEREST is what gets spent for operations. Unless you get a return of 8% per year on an endowment, being forced to spend 8% of it per year means you have an ever-dwindling supply of money.

Or is this the old boys club where they are shoving student's money around

Endowments are not student's money.

Comment Re:Colleges are not for education (Score 1) 274

The price of college is based (loosely) on how much it costs to educate someone.

So loosely that it can be considered completely irrelevant. Most of the cost of a college education comes from the taxpayer. That has been dropping over the years, however, because of college loans. This federal taxpayer-funded system is causing state taxpayers to question how much of their money should be going to higher education, because the students are getting taxpayer-backed loans that they seldom repay (and are often suggested to be totally forgiven) so why shouldn't tuition go up to cover the difference?

As the costs of labor increase, wouldn't you expect that professors salaries would go up as well

Not at the same rate that the costs of labor for everyone goes up. The "cost of labor" is much more than just professor salaries, it's health care (in large part), union wages for trades, etc. And, BTW, professor salaries do go up.

I have two kids that in a few years will be looking at college, and I will encourage both of them to go to Germany.

I'm sure the German taxpayers will thank you profusely, and I, as a US taxpayer, will too. One of us will be sarcastic about it, the other honest. Can you guess which is which?

Comment Re:Colleges are not for education (Score 1) 274

It would mean that we would all get regular PhD salaries, the kind you have to supplement by moonlighting at an Amazon warehouse.

No, it would mean the ONLY salary you'd get is by working at an warehouse, because there would be such a glut of PhDs that most of them would never find a job in their field. It's already hard for PhDs in some fields to get jobs. You think by increasing the supply there would be more jobs for them? Do you really think that a company that is looking for one PhD is going to split that one job into 18 part time jobs because 18 people applied for it?

Comment Re:Colleges are not for education (Score 1) 274

i disagree with the statement "people tend to not value things that they don't think costs them anything". i went to school basically free.

Personal anecdotal evidence does not contradict statistical trends.

There's a really stupid Allstate Insurance ad on that has a woman talking to a man about driving, and she asks him "so you say that men are better drivers than women? Then why did I get a good-driver check from Allstate..." This proves that Allstate Insurance has no clue when it comes to statistics, even though it is a business based on statistics.

History has shown that people who don't feel they have ownership of something don't care as much about it as people who do. If someone pays nothing for a car, for example by having a company car, he will typically not take as good care of it as if it were his own. Or rental cars. You don't know anyone who has expressed the idea that "it's a rental, I'm going to drive the shit out of it and I don't care"? I do.

An excellent example was the Cabrini-Green housing project in south Chicago. Low cost housing, nobody felt any pride of ownership, and the place was a drug-dealer, urinate-in-the-stairwell kind of place. This same concept is why Habitat for Humanity requires sweat equity from people who get houses from them.

i can tell you i sure valued that education.

Good for you, and I'm glad you got it. But I can walk about a block from where I am now and find buildings filled with frat boys and sorority sisters whose parents are paying for their college and for whom classes are a nuisance.

i consider the consequences, they are a nice life based on my degree and education.

Many people have a nice life without a degree or education. Some people drop out of high school without any regard for their future. You're at one end of a bell curve. The other end still exists.

Comment Re:Colleges are not for education (Score 1) 274

Persons with college degrees are less likely ...

to have a lot of bad habits, none of which are because they are college graduates. You're seeing a causal relationship when none exists. People who are motivated enough to better themselves through college educations are also motivated enough to wear seatbelts, volunteer, etc. In other words, they'd be doing all those "beneficial to society" things whether they have a free degree or not.

In fact, if you make college free, you'll probably see a decline in the percentages of all those good things, not an increase, as people who aren't motivated enough to go to college on their own money start using the free stuff the government is giving them.

Comment Loss of memory, or just loss of fear? (Score 3, Interesting) 105

However, the PDE4B-inhibited mice also showed less recall of a fearful event after several days than ordinary mice.

Perhaps being smarter enabled them to process the "fearful event", determine the cause of the fear, the amount of actual hazard and any risk mitigation actions they could take, and thus not be as "afeard" the next time that event happened?

That's what humans do. They get scared by something, realize that the fright was temporary and not based on an actual threat, and desensitize.

And my fist thought was "Flowers For Algernon", too.

Comment Re: Meet the new guy (Score 1) 393

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Nope, you are. If there is no reason to have a mandatory, free id issued at the state level, there is absolutely zero justification for yet another unfunded mandate upon the states.

But the problem is, the feds cannot mandate voter ID because the feds do not control the state elections. So the state must create the law. But that's racist. Even if you make the cost $0, there's still the "issue" of forcing poor people to take time off work to prove they are citizens. (And we know from being told so many times, "poor" is a defining racial characteristic.) So if you can't have mandatory voter id, then you're back at the starting point and have no justification for requiring free ids.

Variables don't; constants aren't.