When you transpose that general assumption to this specific market I think its a very steep uphill climb, but if you're going to link study outcomes to either having a job or not having a job, I think you probably would need to start with a percentage of the research that is done by tenured professors against the percentage done by non tenured.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mike View PostAnd that's the rub. The GOP race, in particular, illustrates the polarization taking place. Given that Hillary is the presumptive candidate for the Dems (and few people are bigger insiders) I'm not sure the same can be said for that side.
Long ago one might have thought that more citizen involvement to be a good thing, but IMO its pushing us toward disaster. You cannot have Kennedy and Danforth work out a deal, greased with a little pork, any longer. We used to think that was terrible...now it looks like a dream.
- Top
Comment
-
Hack
I'm not trying to equivocate self-interest. Your ppints are fair. That said, I do think there is enough there to raise flags for me. But I'm one cynical fucker and academics don't evade my cynicism.
Hoss:
Man, I really like that point.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
I'm all for cynicism. We've talked about academia very recently. But the allegation defies common sense. I mean, the SEC 2015 whistleblower report was published this week. 4000 whistles blown in the annual reporting period. In the field of securities. And you're saying the only whistleblowers in this particular area just happen to be the ones paid for by oil companies?
- Top
Comment
-
Hoss I too think that's a very insightful comment. I might add though, that maybe it's just the wrong kind of citizen involvement. I think it's the difference between transparency and scrutiny. There used to be transparency. At the federal level, as an idiot intern cub reporter 17 years I had far better access to information in DC than reporters do now. I think in the absence of genuine and functional transparency, we get a angry and ineffective kind of scrutiny.
- Top
Comment
-
Hoss: amen to Talent. Good point. Remember that our founders created a constitutional republic, not a democracy. They viewed a democracy as a real danger.
I think it's a pretty big stretch to equate personal biases and how they might spill over into research outcomes with full-on fakery. You'd have to assume a low level of ethics across the board. That kind of end-justified-the-means behavior isn't even that consistent on Wall Street, where every incentive exists to be that way.
Hack, No answer on the one trillion dollars per year. No answer no warming since 2000. No answer on whether China or India will keep their word. And when I say nefarious corporation, I mean I think Wall Street has far too much power. That is why they are going big for Hillary, and that too is a fact.
We have two parties. The Evil Party and the Stupid Party. If they happen to pass anything on a bipartisan basis, be assured it will be both evil and stupid.Last edited by Da Geezer; November 20, 2015, 09:08 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
If we're going to discuss this we need to start with facts as a baseline. I think valid comparisons would need to be made as well, and not invalid ones. I mean, when we had all those cows and bison, were there cars? Coal-fired power plants? Why would we waste time on obviously ridiculous comparisons?Last edited by hack; November 20, 2015, 09:18 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
You criticize me for being inconsistent, but you pointed out that in the Middle East, Saudi is the basic problem. Now, you didn't say Qatar. But I believe Qatar funds Wahabis also. Qatar buys Al Gore's TV station for $ 500 million and Gore gets $ 100 million. So the Qataris pay Gore who is a prominent spokesman for global warming (making the mistake of predicting the future). The Arabian Peninsula is the low cost producer of oil. Does any of this seem strange to you?
And we don't need a baseline to determine whether you are willing to spend one trillion dollars per year, every year, in order to not let the planet's temperature rise 1 degree C.by 2100. Worth it or not?
- Top
Comment
-
You just said that you need a baseline. I was using 2000 as a baseline. You will pick a baseline that favors your position, I'll pick one that favors mine. The best you can claim is about 200 years of data. The earth is roughly 3 billion years old. so:
200/3,000,000,000 = .0000000667 or .00000667%
and you want to bet one trillion, that is $ 1,000,000,000,000 per year on that sample size?
That is why global warming is all about control and wealth transfer and not about warming. 1 degree C by 2100 really?Last edited by Da Geezer; November 20, 2015, 09:36 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
What? I said we should start with facts as a baseline. I said nothing about 2000 or any other year.
Not gonna waste my time here. Michigan is playing Xavier. If you want to resume this we can do so later, but it's got to be a facts-based discussion. And no false comparisons your college professors would have docked you for. I imagine you know better.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by Da Geezer View PostHoss: amen to Talent. Good point. Remember that our founders created a constitutional republic, not a democracy. They viewed a democracy as a real danger.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by hack View PostHoss I too think that's a very insightful comment. I might add though, that maybe it's just the wrong kind of citizen involvement. I think it's the difference between transparency and scrutiny. There used to be transparency. At the federal level, as an idiot intern cub reporter 17 years I had far better access to information in DC than reporters do now. I think in the absence of genuine and functional transparency, we get a angry and ineffective kind of scrutiny.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
- Top
Comment
Comment