So your point is skills can't be learned?
If we really need superstars to teach, then we're screwed. According to the BLS there are something like 3.5 million teachers in the US right now (kindergarten to high school). There are 660,000 physicians and surgeons. 1.3 million computer "engineers" and programmers. So it seems like if your strategy is to magically select exceptionally smart people, then we won't have good teachers.
I don't divide the world into "dim drones" and "brights". It doesn't have to be a "magic equation". The fact is there may be skills and techniques that make for better teachers, and those might be learnt to a certain degree. If that's true, we'll still have better and worse teachers, we'll still have to get rid of bad teachers, but we'll be in a better situation. More money would help, but it needs to be spent intelligently.
Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.
You only care about how many people will watch *your* commercial, not how many commercials those people have seen already. So why would they count for less?
1) The recession is partly DUE to this practice.
How exactly is the recession due to this practice? In 2007, roughly 800,000 jobs were created (1.4M new, 600K destroyed). There were 65K new H1B visas - these last 6 years at the most so let's say that there was a TOTAL stock of 400K H1B visa immigrants. Unless you're saying that these immigrants created financial instruments that natives would not have, which is seriously doubtful.
It's the kind of fraud that Indians have ingrained in to their culture and Americans seem to get better at every day.
I don't think it's any different from hiring illegal immigrants to work the harvest, or at a meatpacking plant. In that case, Indians have nothing to do with it. Some people may call it competition.
Verizon may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with the terms, conditions or policies of this Agreement and AUP.
As I understand it, in Math being able to count does not involve numbers, it involves recognizing that two sets have the same cardinality. We do it through the construct of "numbers", but it's not necessary to resort to them. That's how we know that some sets with infinite cardinality have more elements than others.
That's also how we know kids learn to count gradually over time. When they first learn to speak, although they may know the words one, two, three, they only really recognize sets with one and two elements. Anything more is all the same. The number is not the key, the comparison is.
How come everyone's going so slow if it's called rush hour?