Blog
Facebook
AIM
Digg
Reddit
Stumble It
Email
Report- Make Your Penis Bigger, Harder Erection, and More Exciting.
- News; cheap ghd hair straighteners
- Male enhancement pills, penis enhancement pills, VigRx Plus
- Male Enhancement
- Serviced apartments london.
- Lunch Break Roundup: Homey D. Clown, Ben Stiller And Stephen Colbert
- Roselyn Sanchez Tops The Link Pile
- The Morning Mess With Katy Perry
- U2 Comes to Fordham
- Man fears sexual desires, has balls cut off
The New York Times thinks it has discovered a college trend, that being the desire to innovate. Reporter John Schwartz says that in his supreme knowledge of colleges (as a parent) he’s seen the innovator impulse. And according to him, that’s new.
Now, let’s not get carried away: as a reporter and as a parent, I find myself on plenty of college campuses these days, and many of the students I meet are indistinguishable from the dull-eyed slackers I went to college with (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and Pluto was still a planet). But then there are those who have this . . . THING, this go-getting excitement to start something, make something. They want money, sure. But the overwhelming desire seems to be to carve out something of their own.
Today’s students have grown up hearing more about Bill Gates than F.D.R., and they live in a world where startling innovations are commonplace. The current crop of 18-year-olds, after all, were 8 when Google was founded by two students at Stanford; Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook in 2004 while he was at Harvard and they were entering high school…
The easiest way to find kids like these is to check in on entrepreneurship education, in which colleges and universities try to prepare their students to recognize opportunities and seize them.
[sic]
A report issued last year by the Kauffman Foundation, which finances programs to promote innovation on campuses, noted that more than 5,000 entrepreneurship programs are offered on two- and four-year campuses — up from just 250 courses in 1985.
Okay, yes, there are more entrepreneurship programs in colleges, but does that mean that college students are becoming more innovative? Or does it just mean that more are buying into not-so-innovative established programs, programs which oxymoronically teach students how to be “different” from their fellow “innovative” compatriots?
Search
Hot Links
Popular Posts
Not distinguishing between shapeless asteroids and objects whose composition clearly makes them planets is a disservice and is sloppy science.
As of now, there are three other KBOs that meet this criterion and therefore should be classified as planetsâHaumea, Makemake, and Eris. Only one KBO has been found to be larger than Pluto, and that is Eris.
The IAU definition makes no linguistic sense, as it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. Thatâs like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear. Second, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were placed in Plutoâs orbit, by the IAU definition, it would not be a planet. That is because the further away an object is from its parent star, the more difficulty it will have in clearing its orbit.
Significantly, this definition was adopted by only four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists. No absentee voting was allowed. It was done so in a highly controversial process that violated the IAUâs own bylaws, and it was immediately opposed by a petition of 300 professional astronomers saying they will not use the new definition, which they described accurately as âsloppy.â Also significant is the fact that many planetary scientists are not IAU members and therefore had no say in this matter at all.
Many believe we should keep the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star.
We can distinguish different types of planets with subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, super Earths, hot Jupiters, etc.
We should be broadening, not narrowing our concept of planet as more objects are being discovered in this and other solar systems.
In a 2000 paper, Dr. Alan Stern and Dr. Hal Levison distinguish two types of planetsâthe gravitationally dominant ones and the smaller ones that are not gravitationally dominant. However, they never say that objects in the latter category are not planets.
I attended the Great Planet Debate, which actually took place in August 2008, and there was a strong consensus there that a broader, more encompassing planet definition is needed. I encourage anyone interested to listen to and view the conference proceedings at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ You can also read more about this issue on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com
You can find the petition of astronomers who rejected the demotion of Pluto here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/ Posted 01/05/2009 5:03 PMReply