Letters to the Editor
crumley
Published Letters: 174 Editor's Choice: 51
-
Post grad education already free
[Read the article: No contradiction in engineering gap data]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am confused by part of Vivek's comments. He said "We should make graduate education close to free like it is in China" .
At reputable schools engineering and physical science degrees are already effectively free. A decent PhD student is almost always able to find a TA or RA position that covers tuition and subsistence level room and board. I am not sure what changes he wants in this area, but the coast of graduate education in a science and engineering hasn't been a reason that I have heard for people dropping. Does he want to do away with RA and TA positions? TA positions, while sometimes slowing the progress toward graduation are useful experiences for PhD student, as well as being a very important part of the big school teaching method. And RA positions often involve paying students to do there thesis research, so they are usually a fine deal for students. (Though I have heard horror stories about some advisors and about variations across fields).
I agree with many of his other recommendation. Post-doc wages and research opportunities can definitely be a problem.
I haven't been able to get into the original report yet (server problems?), so maybe these questions are answered there.
-
Less screen shrinking
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One more good thing about CBS's current coverage. They seem to have done away with screen shrinking to show scores.
A couple of years ago in the first 3 or 4 rounds every 15 minutes or so CBS would shrink the size of the screen actually showing the game by about a quarter. They would then run through the scores on the bottom of the screen with an opaque graphic behind the scores. The left side of the screen was covered with some sort of CBS branding graphic - no useful information.
Inevitably these screen shrinking incidents would happen when something interesting was happening in the game being played.
I am very glad they have dropped those things, and these days they seem to be sticking with nice little translucent scoring bugs on the top of the screen.
-
Ouch
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]King,
Why were you watching a Marlins/Nationals game closely enough to notice what the announcer said. I know its you job, but Marlins/Nationals? Ouch.
Thanks for all of the Eddie Robison links. here's another one with a few decent quotes from the current all time win leader in college football, John Gagliardi http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/SPORTS/104050002/1002 . Gagliardi obviously isn't the historic figure that Robinson is, but they do share the same humble love for the game.
-
Media Consolidation
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]King, I think that you miss one importrant thing that has changed in sports talk radio in the past 30 years - media consolidation. In the 80's when I listened to sports talk radio frequently, all of the shows were local. The shows were done by local guys and they focussed on local teams. Maybe I was just blessed to be in a good market, but it didn't seem like syndicated shows had much support, at least for sports.
Since ownership rules were loosened up in the 90s, syndicated shows have exploded, as has ESPN Radio. It is a lot cheaper for the big companies to use syndicated content, but it is also a lot less interesting. In many markets, local shows are hard to come by and the syndicated radio shows are just doing less expensive versions of what is already on ESPN TV.
Sports blogs do seem to be a natural reaction to nationalized sports talk radio. With blogs you can usually find someone discussing the teams that you care about.
-
Enviro-Luddites
[Read the article: Hypocrite environmentalists?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that there are dangers associated with genetically modified foods, and that they should be regulation of them. My problem with the way this issue is handled by environmental movement is that the loudest voices call for the most extreme action. Yes, genetically modified foods should be regulated, but the outright ban of them is nonsense.
It is similar to how some environmentalists dismiss nuclear power. Nuclear power has the potential to be a key ingredient in a balanced approach to prevent global warming that includes increased efficiency and conservation, wind, solar, an biomass. Yet many environmentalists will not even consider nuclear power, largely out of fear of the word "nuclear".
The debate over genetically modified plants seems to be following a similar pattern. Once the word genetics is brought up, people seem to tune out whatever comes next. This situation is in unfortunate considering the vast potential of this technology to improve agriculture and help feed the increasing population of the world.
-
Golden rice
[Read the article: Hypocrite environmentalists?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is at least one famous example of a genetically modified crop that has the consumer in mind - golden rice (www.goldrice.org). Golden rice is rice that has been genetically engineered to increase its the amount of beta carotene it includes . The idea being that golden rice would decrease mal-nutrition in populations dependent on rice as a staple food.
I would be interested to hear from someone who rejects genetic alterations on moral grounds on what you think of golden rice.
-
Par for the course
[Read the article: Not that there's anything wrong with that]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This wouldn't crack even crack the top 100 on a list of the stupidest things Tommy Thompson ever said.
-
Obama's Crawford
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Summer Olympics are often in August. Congress is usually out of session in August and the President usually takes vacations in August (though most do not take as long as GWB). So as either Senator or President it is quite plausible that Obama could be vacationing at his place in Chicago during the Olympics.
Of course to read Obama's quote that way you have to parse it so that "by then" means "by August" and not "by 2016". It probably was a flub, but still.