I'm pretty sure the university is paid to be useful to the student. The student is paid to be useful to society when they get a job.

Also you're blaming them for "screwing up" by not magically deriving useful knowledge from a rushed and poorly run exercise? By not having a natural talent for it rather than expecting to actually be taught something of value?

The dissection for that matter did nothing to prevent someone from becoming a biologist or surgeon as you claim. They didn't throw up their hands and say "This is not for me!" immediately afterward. They even gave an example of something related to the subject they would have liked to have learned if given the chance. Your argument smacks of elitism more than anything.

India's UGC was not suggesting that biologists should only perform research on simulations.

Honestly I think a number of the comments here genuinely were attempting to claim that computer simulations are not useful.

For that matter, is a sudden unexpected variation that only physical models can provide really that useful when trying to teach a novice student basic anatomy?

"India Curries Favour of Local Chefs"

"India Kills New Murder Bill"

"India Pins Down and Rapes the Sex Offender Registration List Until It Bleeds and Is Permanently Traumatized"

I find it amazing that on Slashdot of all places so many people are questioning the very premise of computer simulated training and whether it's a viable analogue of the physical world.

I know right? Designing airplanes and training pilots using computer simulations is unthinkable.

I feel obligated to point out how offensive and insulting that one suggestion of yours is.

I mean seriously, PETA?

Do you realize just how easy that would make it for anyone with a grudge or conflicting viewpoint to engineer the shutdown of an entire agency?

I don't disagree though that an individual abusing the power their government granted to them should be the end of their political career.

They sure won't. They've printed all they needed to get rich and cash out already.

Obama is dealing with a legacy of toxic economics and disastrous foreign policy that was years/decades in the making.

As for compulsory voting: I'd say [citation needed] on the higher percentage of apathy voting. I'd also say that Australian ticking boxes randomly which are randomly ordered causes no upset in the competition because the apathetic votes will be evenly distributed.

Not to mention I'd kill for the instant runoffs you guys have.

You do know that modern Christianity is largely based on taking loose translations literally right?

There's a big difference here. Practically no one is objecting to the use of attractive people to pitch products. Photoshopping models selling cosmetics is problematic though because:

• It is disingenuous about the effects the product would have in real life (which is false advertising).
• It creates expectations of perfection that are unrealistic, to the point they almost dip back into the uncanny valley.
• It narrows the definition of what is attractive to the industry standard supermodel look, which is both frustrating for people trying to improve their body image, and boring from an aesthetic standpoint

But what is the alternative? Stop developing communications or information technology?

Don't forget that there are rapidly diminishing returns, which levels the playing field to some degree. A secret spy satellite network is much more advanced/thorough/organized than any surveillance technology the public has access to, and yet in most urban contexts a bunch of people with camera phones + internet access could easily acquire data that is comparably informative (or superior in some cases).

Typically they're killed by IEDs, another low tech weapon fired from a remote distance.

But ethics are not the same as politics. When science is not dictated by ethics all of humanity tends to lose. That's why we're having a debate on where the line should be drawn.

Even the argument to cut off funding for stem cell research is slightly different than this since that tends to be religiously motivated, rather than based on morals arrived at through rational debate. Also I don't think you should feel a need to lump anything in with anything, these are separate arguments for separate issues which are not directly analogous and so they should be evaluated individually.

For example; I support stem cell research because I have seen no compelling evidence that stem cells have an inherent value as living beings, because there is no alternative to the knowledge research on them provides, and because I have no religious affiliation that commands me to unquestioningly accept a given viewpoint on the matter.

I don't support animal testing because I have seen compelling evidence that animals have inherent value as living beings, and because there are alternatives to the cruel testing methods currently in place. Apples and oranges.