@chtierna

I would imagine he was in the same situation I was in. It was more convenient to let it happen for the school, for the people cheating, for the teachers and the only people hurt were the ones who didn't participate and got punished for it with lower scores than the cheaters. If the house of cards ever did come down, it'd probably result in all the higher ups being replaced and all the profs being re-assessed. I can safely say it ran all the way up to the Dean in my school of study within the university. Otherwise he wouldn't have been changing my evaluation scores like I was agreeing with his point of view.....right in front of me. I mean who else do you complain to if you can't complain to the dean? And is it going to result in something that means the last 4 years of time and money investment aren't worth complete shit at the end? It's a slowly spiraling situation with most of the state funded universities I suspect, they expect certain numbers of passing students/etc and they do what it takes or ignore whatever it takes to get those numbers and a nice padding on top of it.

This is where businesses go "That new batch of hires we just got really suck compared to the ones we hired 10 years ago, maybe we should make sure they have 5-10 years experience from now on." And we end up in this cycle where you need a degree, high marks, and 5-10 years experience to land an entry level job or a whole load of luck and a big dose of bending the truth (making shit up) on your resume.

I have to say I got stuck there, the company I co-oped for didn't offer me a job when I finished even though they had said repeatedly they'd have something and never indicated dissatisfaction with my work. Plus I didn't see how my experience at that particular job could apply to others because they didn't want co-ops being involved in the core code due to patents/theft/whatever, so I was left with hands on testing, GUI work, and hardware tests if the software was throwing up on it for some reason. And I didn't feel it was right to embellish my resume because it'd cause me a lot of grief if someone wanted me and I couldn't produce at their expectations.

And then the dotcom bubble burst, man that was an awesome time. People with 15 and 20 years experience taking the entry level positions in my area for the next 3-4 years. I never recovered from it, I worked where I could keep a job and work off paying my loans. And now it's even worse, job market is still declining in my area..across the board.

I will say this, there was a teacher at my university who literally didn't show up for class half a quarter. Never returned assignments or tests until the end of the quarter. No one knew if they were doing anything satisfactory. At the end most of the students were screwed, they petitioned and they all got a passing grade in the class due to this. But that means they potentially learned nothing. This teacher went on later to teach the same class...that I was in. He was horrible, I skipped his class....I mean he literally acted like he was on something. And he drove a car with no top in the winter...it snowed into his car. This guy was still working there when I graduated. And he spoke understandable English...I had lecturers that were using words I didn't understand because their accent was so heavy. Finally after class I'd get to ask someone else if they understood the words I didnt, and they ask me some words they didn't understands...and we deciphered the code. This happened more and more as I progressed toward my degree, more heavy accents. At some point you gotta laugh at how crazy it was just trying to take a class you're paying a hefty sum of cash for.


>> ^chtierna:

Wasn't there any way you could tip the teachers off as to what was happening?
>> ^ShakyJake:
I just graduated recently with a Mechanical Engineering degree, and I have to say that I just WISH this had happened in some of my classes. There were communities in some of my classes that I was never part of that had copies of everything, each semester. All the homework problems out of the textbooks, old exams from previous semesters where the professor just used the same exam year after year, these guys had it all. And no matter how hard I studied, I could never match that kind of advantage. Even more frustrating was that in most cases the classes would be based on "the curve", and these people threw that off. I never actually stooped to cheating, but there were certainly times I wished I had been.

>> ^nock:

Inflation gets a bad rap, the Fed's job is to maintain yearly inflation of about 1-2%. Deflation is really bad because it means that my money is more valuable sitting in my pocket/under mattress/etc today than it will be tomorrow. So why would I buy a large item (car, house, etc) if my ability to purchase increases the more I hold onto my money? In essence, the economy stops because consumers earn more by spending less and companies must lower prices, which leads to layoffs which leads to decreased earnings which leads to less spending which leads to lower prices which leads to layoffs which...


The same logic could be applied for the purchase of technology; why buy today, when something awesome will come out in 6 months. In reality, people do not operate like that. Most people buy object A for X dollars in whenever X dollars is achieved.

Like I said in my comment before, when you start to swing money supply extreme in either direction, that is where the danger starts. Mild deflation or inflation is nothing to troubling. The real problem is there is no objective mathematical principle in which the fed operates the money supply. Minor inflation is smart when considering a continual rise in the population, but there is no standard metric that they follow for this because they ALSO try and heat and cool markets, something they shouldn't be in the business of doing.

Saying inflation is bad or good isn't really viable. Inflation is good for some, bad for others. Deflation is the same bed, good for some, bad for others. Most notably, it is bad for big business. It is in big business's best interest to have cheap money they can spend before it inflates to fill their coffers. Deflation places its power to individuals financing slower endeavors. What is "better" is a matter of taste of lifestyle, one that I don't think the government has any business regulating per say. And I say that in spite of the fact that, most likely, the decisions people would make would tend us towards a lifestyle that I don't enjoy as much (living in perpetual debt...house, car, cards, chrismas!!)...but so be it.

In short, debt as a source of wealth favors those that save money for others. Savings as a source of wealth favors those that save their own wealth for themselves and those they chose to share it with. Both work, but for whom and to what degree sways largely, and in our case, largely on the decisions unelected quzi-public servants make...unacceptable.

so according to mr root the housing bubble was due to giving houses away to blacks and hispanics?
hmmm..i didnt seem to get that memo.i was under the impression that was due to the newly deregulated financial industry exploiting certain loopholes allowing them to consolidate mortgages into securities which they then paid accountants off to give those securities an AA rating in order to better con..*cough* i mean "trade", on the open market.which then inflated housing prices waaaay past their actual value and when this house of cards began to tumble these very same financial institutions begged for bailout money and left the american public not only paying for the bailout but also left holding the bag on homes that are still...to this day..decreasing in value.

racism? sure.but not against blacks or hispanics but rather the poor and working class.
Root is a libertarian? not by my definition.he is a corporatist.
people have been so indoctrinated into believing that capitalism is synonomous with democracy.this is a fallacy perpetuated by big business and it is inherently false.
the governments ONLY job concerning big business should be fraud protection but we have not seen that in years and instead have been subjected to big business infiltrating by way of purchasing all three branches and since they OWN the media the message of the decade is "free market is GOOD,regulation is BAD".
really? REEEALLY?
if you still believe that you have not been paying attention.

i agree with many libertarian views but not with this dude Root.
running for president mr Root?
good luck with that.

>> ^Sniper007:

He's assuming limited global population is the desired outcome. It just so happens that limiting your population growth is what will take the blue box to below the 'sandal people'. The tremendous economic growth has risen and fallen in the US following exactly in line with the demographic phenomenon called the baby boom. Now that the baby boomers are leaving the work force, the entire US financial house of cards is falling.
This guy has NO CLUE what he's talking about. Wealth is CREATED by humanity. If you limit humanity's growth, you limit wealth's growth.
If he's worried about 'climate change', then he should realize that it's not the number of people, but their behavior which (potentially) affects that. In FACT, there are humans which by living their lives (ironically, in a lifestyle manner not unlike the 'sandal people') have a POSITIVE effect on their local climates, and thus the global climate (sic).


A widely held but incorrect view. Limited global population MUST be the desired outcome or humans will exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. Relying on the promise of new technologies is a naive recipe for possible disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

If you want to talk assumption, you're assuming that maximum relative wealth is the desired outcome. Pretty selfish, eh?

Baby boomers leaving the workforce is really only a problem because of Social Security and health care costs and an unbalanced worker to retiree ratio. That ratio will change over time and we'll probably have a period of austerity as it changes back to something resembling equilibrium. The baby boom being correlated with economic growth/decline is really not proof that increased population causes increased wealth. There are many other factors involved which have nothing to do with population.

Wealth is obviously not directly tied to population, or the United States wouldn't have vastly higher wealth with such a relatively low population density compared to the rest of the world. If you mean overall world wealth, perhaps that's true, since more people = more work = more promises to pay back debts, but when you're talking about a closed loop system, it's all relative. So, if you take the view that more world population means more poor people for rich countries to exploit, that would be true, but then you also have to assume infinite resources and an undamageable environment.

>> ^Sniper007:

He's assuming limited global population is the desired outcome. It just so happens that limiting your population growth is what will take the blue box to below the 'sandal people'. The tremendous economic growth has risen and fallen in the US following exactly in line with the demographic phenomenon called the baby boom. Now that the baby boomers are leaving the work force, the entire US financial house of cards is falling.
This guy has NO CLUE what he's talking about. Wealth is CREATED by humanity. If you limit humanity's growth, you limit wealth's growth.
If he's worried about 'climate change', then he should realize that it's not the number of people, but their behavior which (potentially) affects that. In FACT, there are humans which by living their lives (ironically, in a lifestyle manner not unlike the 'sandal people') have a POSITIVE effect on their local climates, and thus the global climate (sic).


Ironic that you say Hans Rosling doesn`t know what he`s talking about. How can 2 billion of the poorest people turning into 4 billion help economic growth? In fact, its one of the factors that perpetuate the cycle of poverty, as limited land is passed down to successive generations. When your small plot of land is divided amongst your 6 children, and they each divide their land amongst each of their 6 children, it does not help your condition one bit.

Also, sure an individual from a developed nation choosing to live frugally (like the 'sandal people') may result in a net positive effect on their local climate by reducing their individual carbon footprint. However, an additional 2 billion 'sandal people' will significantly increase our environmental impact through increased demand and things like deforestation.

>> ^Sniper007:

He's assuming limited global population is the desired outcome. It just so happens that limiting your population growth is what will take the blue box to below the 'sandal people'. The tremendous economic growth has risen and fallen in the US following exactly in line with the demographic phenomenon called the baby boom. Now that the baby boomers are leaving the work force, the entire US financial house of cards is falling.
This guy has NO CLUE what he's talking about. Wealth is CREATED by humanity. If you limit humanity's growth, you limit wealth's growth.
If he's worried about 'climate change', then he should realize that it's not the number of people, but their behavior which (potentially) affects that. In FACT, there are humans which by living their lives (ironically, in a lifestyle manner not unlike the 'sandal people') have a POSITIVE effect on their local climates, and thus the global climate (sic).


Wealth is not created by humanity's growth. Much of the financial "wealth" of the last century was created by banks and bankers. Money is a very misunderstood concept. http://videosift.com/video/What-is-money

In relation to population growth and the environment Rosling's concern is that the trend of rising economies is that they tend to adopt the behavior of the economic state they rise towards, i.e. trading in bicycles for volvos. He states point blank that technologies should be developed so that these people can choose to use electric volvos rather than diesel ones, and thus curb behavior to have a reduced environmental impact.

He's assuming limited global population is the desired outcome. It just so happens that limiting your population growth is what will take the blue box to below the 'sandal people'. The tremendous economic growth has risen and fallen in the US following exactly in line with the demographic phenomenon called the baby boom. Now that the baby boomers are leaving the work force, the entire US financial house of cards is falling.

This guy has NO CLUE what he's talking about. Wealth is CREATED by humanity. If you limit humanity's growth, you limit wealth's growth.

If he's worried about 'climate change', then he should realize that it's not the number of people, but their behavior which (potentially) affects that. In FACT, there are humans which by living their lives (ironically, in a lifestyle manner not unlike the 'sandal people') have a POSITIVE effect on their local climates, and thus the global climate (sic).

When Bill mentions the "killing of animals" or the "extinction of species", I always wonder why he and others who make similar conservationist points don't take it a step further. It's not about the cute fuzzy animals we love to look at, it's about the larger system they comprise. Each species plays a role, and sometimes we have no idea what that role is. When one disappears, it can have a devastating effect on the overall system. I think stating that helps people see it's not about some wishy-washy hippie bullshit, it's about a house of cards that you should not FUCK with if you can help it.

That was sad on soooo many levels really: the rolling turd they were driving, the tiny stack of tires to protect the crowd, the fact that they didn't swing the rear into the wall as I'd imagined but went straight in, the wall collapsing like a house of cards, but the most amusing part was the angle of the car at the end. Is that wall stopping them from falling into a river or something? They should have given it a little more and finished it off.

This video got me thinking about the old expression that "no questions are stupid"

First off, I realize of course that this is fiction, and the priest is an actor, nevertheless I cant imagine a real priest doing a much better job answering these questions. Sure, he might tackle the situation better, but I suspect the kids questions would still remain unanswered. The simplest explanation for this is that its not because the questions are bad, immature or irrelevant, its because the superstition they are probing is bad,immature and irrelevant.

This is why religions rely on "faith". in itself a muddy and wishy washy concept, but an effective means to keep the religion muddy and wishy-washy. Faith is like a border, restricting the faithful from ever poking the house of cards. "My house of cards is rock solid, but dont get to close, dont cough or do any sudden moves around it. Rock solid i say."

One of the many reasons I like evidence-based ideas over superstition is because they can actually stand scrutiny and questioning, and there really are no dumb questions.

"solid frame work that just needs fleshed out." You mean spending more than bush did in 8 terms in his first year? Anyone who has credit card debt knows the debt monster than presidents have been writing for years. Soon, the house of cards is coming down...the exponential spending that obama is doing hastens the day.

Out of money because your "Conservative" heroes have been robbing them blind for decades to pay for everything that can't be paid for because of all those lovely tax cuts for billionaires and corporate America.

You're forgetting the 3 trillion spent on liberals' failed "war on poverty". Youse libs think that if only you could rob all of America's millionaires and billionaires of 90% of everything they have there'd suddenly be enough money to pay for all the socialist programs so dearly loved? That's total bunk, and even if it were true, the liberal spending spree knows no limits, with the conservative version not too far behind.

It's all a house of cards anyhoo. Obama and Douchebag Bernanke are printing money on toilet paper. Forget gold, buy canned goods and ammo!

I have questioned my belief in Capitalism. I've often said if there's a better system, I'd be for it. I'm not convinced Socialism or any variation thereof is a better system. One of my good friends, a Marxist, has petitioned to me about the greatness of such a society. But, for that system to work you cannot question it, because once you do the proverbial house of cards comes crashing down around him. It's not that he doesn't explain it well. No, the contrary he's one of the smartest men I know. Has a Masters in Business Administration from Cambridge and hates Capitalism, as well.

But, one thin we agree on is that when people bandy about the term Capitalism, they really mean Corporatism. This isn't me creating an idealistic view of Capitalism by removing it from the association of Corporatism and large Industrialists. My largest fears rest in them.

It comes down to who owns the means of production. You believe it should belong to the workers, while I believe it should belong to whoever puts up the capital and takes the risk. I want to know how that is to happen without violence? How can we make a peaceful transition to Socialism? Beyond that, I don't find it moral to steal, and by remove power from individuals who "own" a company and give it to many, it is stealing. It would be like us revolting on VideoSift and taking the ownership of the site away from dag. It wouldn't be moral.

You asked, "When was the last time Ron Paul made an effort to curb corporate power?" He always votes against Corporatist interests. He strongly opposed the bailouts. He doesn't agree with government giving in to Corporatists and excluding smaller businesses, and so far his plane hasn't crashed in the sea. The health industry is a complete morass thanks to government "restrictions" which excludes smaller businesses from competing and practically handed that entire industry over to the Corporations. You think if some public option was passed the Corporations wouldn't be the ones to benefit? Government is the problem; not the solution.

You said, "You use the term 'government' as a pejorative, and consider democracy tyranny." And, yes, I do believe Democracy, when direct, is tyrannical. If 51% of the Christian population wanted to put prayer back in school, do you think it would be fair for your children if they had to pray in school because of it? Or if 51% of white people decided the minority races should be made into slaves? Direct Democracy is dangerous. How can it not be? Please explain to me how Democracy isn't 51% of the population taking the rights away from 49%?

And, I'm absolutely cynical of my government. Why shouldn't I be? We know they lie to us (Waco, Gulf of Tonkin, Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc. etc. etc.), so why would I want them to have even more control over my life and my labor when they've proven to be beyond the capacity of trust? You Democrats are just like the Republicans. When your guy is in office, it's unpatriotic to go against government. But, when the other guy is in office, it's patriotic. You and NetRunner and KnivesOut and the other Social Dems on here didn't have a single problem with me when I was speaking against the Bush Administration, but let me say one cross word against Obama and I'm a heretic.

I ask for you to explain how Socialism would work. Give me an example how we could possibly make that transition.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday

In reply to this comment by siaiaiaaaaaa:
Enzoblue


'Self Regulation' is exactly what the Bush administration, and here in Britain, did. They said 'the free market knows best, knows more than us. Let them get on with it'.

And they deregulated everything. And look what happened.

All you people ever seem to understand is black and white. The fact is for most things in life to work, especially in economics, there's always a compromise that needs to be found.
You americans have all been brainwashed by the red army propaganda from way back when, and anything remotely to do with government you cry of communism. How absurd.

Deregulation played a major part in the financial meltdown. As westy says, business fundementally is about exploiting people. If you make a profit on something, you are exploiting. If you were to leave Healthcare to the private world, their fundamental concern is to maximise shareholder wealth - not to maximise the nations health.

You can go on deluding yourselves about glorious capitalism - history and evidence has shown.........it doesn't work. You need a bit of both. You need free markets to keep prices down and generate competition, but you also need governments to not let companies get too huge, create barriers to entry into markets (which is the current situation, thus suppressing competition) and have taxes which benefit people who aren't rich (i.e. 99% of the world population.....)
I advise you to read some books on this myth of 'free market is best'.
The cost of capitalism: robert j barbera
The myth of the rational market: justin fox
House of cards: william d cohan

The last one especially talks about the greed of wall street you hear so much about, but don't seem to acknowledge. When youve got money as a motivating factor, all ethical concerns and welfare of others go straight out the window. If you want your perfect free market - that is the exact mentality that will take place - which would be fine if everyone was starting off on an even plate, with the same amount of assets - but they're not. The inequality between poor/average/rich is so huge it would never be fair to begin with.

The problem of course now is politicians see their positions as careers, rather than civil servants. But with a good government, with good people, if that will ever happen, proper regulation and control of the markets has to take place to ensure the equality gap doesn't become even more wide than it is at the moment. Oil company profits anyone?


good answer.
that would have taken me..oh....a small novella to get my idea across.
well said brother.

Enzoblue


'Self Regulation' is exactly what the Bush administration, and here in Britain, did. They said 'the free market knows best, knows more than us. Let them get on with it'.

And they deregulated everything. And look what happened.

All you people ever seem to understand is black and white. The fact is for most things in life to work, especially in economics, there's always a compromise that needs to be found.
You americans have all been brainwashed by the red army propaganda from way back when, and anything remotely to do with government you cry of communism. How absurd.

Deregulation played a major part in the financial meltdown. As westy says, business fundementally is about exploiting people. If you make a profit on something, you are exploiting. If you were to leave Healthcare to the private world, their fundamental concern is to maximise shareholder wealth - not to maximise the nations health.

You can go on deluding yourselves about glorious capitalism - history and evidence has shown.........it doesn't work. You need a bit of both. You need free markets to keep prices down and generate competition, but you also need governments to not let companies get too huge, create barriers to entry into markets (which is the current situation, thus suppressing competition) and have taxes which benefit people who aren't rich (i.e. 99% of the world population.....)
I advise you to read some books on this myth of 'free market is best'.
The cost of capitalism: robert j barbera
The myth of the rational market: justin fox
House of cards: william d cohan

The last one especially talks about the greed of wall street you hear so much about, but don't seem to acknowledge. When youve got money as a motivating factor, all ethical concerns and welfare of others go straight out the window. If you want your perfect free market - that is the exact mentality that will take place - which would be fine if everyone was starting off on an even plate, with the same amount of assets - but they're not. The inequality between poor/average/rich is so huge it would never be fair to begin with.

The problem of course now is politicians see their positions as careers, rather than civil servants. But with a good government, with good people, if that will ever happen, proper regulation and control of the markets has to take place to ensure the equality gap doesn't become even more wide than it is at the moment. Oil company profits anyone?