no, it really is not cheap. it is just about as expensive as any form of reading-access can be. i can't think of a more expensive example.
180 bucks a year to read a couple of 5-10 page articles. yeah super duper cheap bro
and that, again, is relying on one library's resources. the $180 example being for a LIMITED selection of databases. and good luck going to a library in-person to find a physical copy of something. again: i can think of about 3 libraries i've been to, ever, that stock a huge and extensive back-catalogue of all journals. most libraries will have relatively modest collections.Cybargs wrote:
180 bucks a year to read a couple of 5-10 page articles. yeah super duper cheap bro
almost all journal queries and searches are now done online. most journal reading/publishing is kept online now, too - less cost, and you don't have to travel miles and miles to a library that may or may not have something. in order to get access to online journals, as a member of 'joe public', you're looking at upwards of £50 per journal. even that $180 bucks looks like a silly figure when you consider that a) it is LIMITED and b) you have to actually troop over there in person (which add time/effort/travel costs, of course).
online access is expensive. you either have to be a current student at a participating institution, or you have to fork over a lot of money.
so, in conclusion:
NOT FREE. we are not "simply wrong", as you said for about 4 posts.
and even when you hedge your bets with some fees, they are far from cheap. the price/page is sky-high.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-06 05:40:22)
Depends really, if you're serious about researching something in depth its very cheap, if a shopgirl happens to be passing and thinks "I wonder whats going on at the cutting edge of literary criticism today, what would it cost to speedread a few papers to get a bit of a flavour?" then $180 is going seem a bit stiff, a bikini-wax is more likely to seem value for money.
$180 Isn't ridiculous for a single specialist book, $180 for access to a complete library, with borrowing rights and searchable journals, for a year, is nothing. I'd probably spend more on coffees and snacks in a week of library research than that.
$180 Isn't ridiculous for a single specialist book, $180 for access to a complete library, with borrowing rights and searchable journals, for a year, is nothing. I'd probably spend more on coffees and snacks in a week of library research than that.
Fuck Israel
i like how you're trying to portray our commonsense posts as arch academic snobbery, "keeping the plebs out" and relishing it, but then you'll talk about an average member of the joe public and talk about them rather spending their money on "a bikini wax". so who is meant to be hating the plebs, here? the academics talking commonsense, based on their own experiences of trying to access journals, or the biased dude leaking hot guff?
also, again: the $180 example - just one particular institution, i add - is for a LIMITED SELECTION. not unlimited. not open free-reign. as you keep talking. the website states explicitly it is for a LIMITED SELECTION of journals.
$180+ in a week on coffee and snacks that's a jay-level money brag. stop posting such shite.
also, again: the $180 example - just one particular institution, i add - is for a LIMITED SELECTION. not unlimited. not open free-reign. as you keep talking. the website states explicitly it is for a LIMITED SELECTION of journals.
$180+ in a week on coffee and snacks that's a jay-level money brag. stop posting such shite.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-06 05:42:43)
Its accessible for peanuts to anyone interested enough to access it.
Anyone with a bit of time and minimal nous can do it.
And if that 'limited selection' is what you're after its OK isn't it?
Surely this is clear to you by now.
Anyone with a bit of time and minimal nous can do it.
And if that 'limited selection' is what you're after its OK isn't it?
Surely this is clear to you by now.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-06 05:44:11)
Fuck Israel
i never said academic research was inaccessible to someone who is interested in it. what i said was that it is not free. i said it is expensive. and it is precisely that. you have not countered that at all. not once. clinging to the example of one university library misses several points: a) that specific example only gives a limited and constricted selection; b) you have to actually go to the library in person, and hope that one specific library stocks what you are interested in; c) the vast majority of journal reading and research takes place online/virtually, where the 'library membership' model does not apply. library memberships tend to be cheaper than online access because... as above, they are limited in terms of collections and geographic access.
i never said anywhere that someone who wants to research a topic cannot do so. i never said the knowledge is under lock and key. anyone, indeed, can buy a crate of 10 academic hardbacks off amazon for the princely sum of £35-40 each. i just said it is not free. "surely this is clear to you".
i never said anywhere that someone who wants to research a topic cannot do so. i never said the knowledge is under lock and key. anyone, indeed, can buy a crate of 10 academic hardbacks off amazon for the princely sum of £35-40 each. i just said it is not free. "surely this is clear to you".
okay sure, let me know how that goes for you. i wonder how many people are within a feasible 50-100 mile radius of that institution who have a special interest in the limited selection they offer. that seems rather niche. especially when most people do their journal research from a computer.And if that 'limited selection' is what you're after its OK isn't it?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-06 05:47:14)
Where did your $180 value come from? Taking a peek at my school its $250 a year and you have to show proof you're doing external research. And even then you only get access to physical records (which admittedly are massive, though you'd spend half your time looking for them). An alumni gets this for free, but either way only current students and faculty are able to access the online databases.
tl;dr almost impossible for general public to get access, not free and certainly not an easy method.
tl;dr almost impossible for general public to get access, not free and certainly not an easy method.
cybargs' university offers a service for $180 for a limited few databases; my university doesn't offer access for money to outsiders at all.
so anyway. that little theory i was expounding upon a week or two back, to jay and dilbert, about funding academia and arts/humanities being of circular benefit and net-profit to the society, despite its niggling lack of scientific/pragmatic 'use' to grab hold of. all that research and spending on the arts, culture, humanities, piffly academic subjects... which dilbert and jay were tut-tutting, because of its truly massive and wasteful annual cost, incurring the grievous annual charge of 0.1% of the total budget. about that:Jay wrote:
They are sucking at the public tit in order to do so. That is a luxury, not a right.
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/arts … port-publ/
so the problem does seem to be what i was originally talking about, all along, and my constant talking in praise of arts/humanities and their qualitative, roundabout 'benefits' has an empirical and concrete economic basis. when i say that people want to dismiss and do away with arts and culture, and when i laugh at dilbert's constant insinuation that it is 'harmful' or 'self-indulgent' or 'effete' navel-gazing for toffs, which only drains the country and saddles it with a whole load of traditional, aristocratic bs... when i counter all this with the charge that you are just a poorly-reasoned philistine, it is actually roundly true. people who are suspicious of the arts/culture/humanities, and who wish to destroy/dismantle them (or just simply cut their funding, if you will) are people who harbour nothing but petty resentments, intellectual envy/inferiority, or sheer and plain ignorance. those are the only real explanations - all, at the end of the day, the same tired, ugly philistinism.
- arts and culture make up 0.4 per cent of *GDP – a significant return on the less than 0.1 per cent of government spending invested in the sector
- arts and culture is a sector of significant scale with a turnover of £12.4 billion and a GVA** of £5.9 billion in 2011
- arts and culture generate more per pound invested than the health, wholesale and retail, and professional and business services sectors
- the arts and culture sector provides 0.45 per cent of total UK employment and 0.48 per cent of total employment in England
- at least £856 million per annum of spending by tourists visiting the UK can be attributed directly to arts and culture
- the economic contribution of the arts and cultural sector has grown since 2008, despite the UK economy as a whole remaining below its output level before the global financial crisis
at least now we can get some peace and quiet.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-07 12:47:52)
Umm, are you separating out private funding for arts or are you lumping it all in and saying that the government gets a 400% return on its investment? Things like concerts are generally privately funded are they not?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
so anyway. that little theory i was expounding upon a week or two back, to jay and dilbert, about funding academia and arts/humanities being of circular benefit and net-profit to the society, despite its niggling lack of scientific/pragmatic 'use' to grab hold of. all that research and spending on the arts, culture, humanities, piffly academic subjects... which dilbert and jay were tut-tutting, because of its truly massive and wasteful annual cost, incurring the grievous annual charge of 0.1% of the total budget. about that:Jay wrote:
They are sucking at the public tit in order to do so. That is a luxury, not a right.
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/arts … port-publ/so the problem does seem to be what i was originally talking about, all along, and my constant talking in praise of arts/humanities and their qualitative, roundabout 'benefits' has an empirical and concrete economic basis. when i say that people want to dismiss and do away with arts and culture, and when i laugh at dilbert's constant insinuation that it is 'harmful' or 'self-indulgent' or 'effete' navel-gazing for toffs, which only drains the country and saddles it with a whole load of traditional, aristocratic bs... when i counter all this with the charge that you are just a poorly-reasoned philistine, it is actually roundly true. people who are suspicious of the arts/culture/humanities, and who wish to destroy/dismantle them (or just simply cut their funding, if you will) are people who harbour nothing but petty resentments, intellectual envy/inferiority, or sheer and plain ignorance. those are the only real explanations - all, at the end of the day, the same tired, ugly philistinism.
- arts and culture make up 0.4 per cent of *GDP – a significant return on the less than 0.1 per cent of government spending invested in the sector
- arts and culture is a sector of significant scale with a turnover of £12.4 billion and a GVA** of £5.9 billion in 2011
- arts and culture generate more per pound invested than the health, wholesale and retail, and professional and business services sectors
- the arts and culture sector provides 0.45 per cent of total UK employment and 0.48 per cent of total employment in England
- at least £856 million per annum of spending by tourists visiting the UK can be attributed directly to arts and culture
- the economic contribution of the arts and cultural sector has grown since 2008, despite the UK economy as a whole remaining below its output level before the global financial crisis
at least now we can get some peace and quiet.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
the report only deals with publicly funded arts. i.e. theaters and concerts put on or sponsored by the arts council. there is a 400% ROI on public money that is spent on public arts - galleries, theaters, funded installations/projects, etc. i don't think you have to do a funding report to conclude that things like private concerts and festivals make a decent return on the initial investment. if they didn't, they wouldn't fucking exist.
Of course. I remember when I went to Woodstock '99 I spent like $300 on tickets and had to pay $5 per bottle of water (it was over 100 degrees that weekend and on a hot ass airfield tarmac) and like $15 for a mini pizza (I was 18 years old so this was a helluva lot of money for me at the time). Three days of those prices and they didn't allow outside food. Multiply that ridiculousness by 200,000 people...Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the report only deals with publicly funded arts. i.e. theaters and concerts put on or sponsored by the arts council. there is a 400% ROI on public money that is spent on public arts - galleries, theaters, funded installations/projects, etc. i don't think you have to do a funding report to conclude that things like private concerts and festivals make a decent return on the initial investment. if they didn't, they wouldn't fucking exist.
Anyway, if it is strictly limited to government funding, well, I would say that's a pretty good return. But, and it's a big but, it's extremely easy to reach the market saturation point with arts related projects. In an economic downturn they're generally the first people hit hard and the last to recover.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
did you miss the part where it said the arts have provided continued growth and profit through the recession? the public arts/culture sector has notably "grown" during the beginning of the "2008 downturn", during a period when most other sectors of the economy stagnated or shrunk.
you STEM guys can stop talking about arty-types "sucking on the tit of the public purse" now then, can't you? i guess so. it's confirmed: science and humanities both consume < 1% of the total federal/national budget, and both pay dividends, in more ways than one. time to find a new reason to hate intellectuals and artists.
you STEM guys can stop talking about arty-types "sucking on the tit of the public purse" now then, can't you? i guess so. it's confirmed: science and humanities both consume < 1% of the total federal/national budget, and both pay dividends, in more ways than one. time to find a new reason to hate intellectuals and artists.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-07 17:25:20)
I never said arty types suck on the tit of the public purse, I said researchers at universities do. All I ever said was that researchers really don't have a leg to stand on when complaining about being asked to justify their research when they are receiving public funds. Logical, no?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
did you miss the part where it said the arts have provided continued growth and profit through the recession? the public arts/culture sector has notably "grown" during the beginning of the "2008 downturn", during a period when most other sectors of the economy stagnated or shrunk.
you STEM guys can stop talking about arty-types "sucking on the tit of the public purse" now then, can't you? i guess so. it's confirmed: science and humanities both consume < 1% of the total federal budget, and both pay dividends, in more ways than one. time to find a new reason to hate intellectuals and artists.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
they don't complain about being asked to 'justify' their research, though. there's a big difference between having to justify/make relevant your research, and having to tailor it to politically-mandated or managerially-appointed 'criteria'. a big difference. that difference is the whole principle of 'free inquiry', or 'intellectual autonomy', if you will. making sure that research progresses according to intellectual curiosity and the inner logic of reason, rather than collaring academia into being a whippet for the ruling elite (with whatever political/social agendas they may wish to push). chaining academia to a political program is disastrous.
every time a researcher writes a proposal or applies for funding, they have to go through volumes of expensive/time-consuming paperwork, to get those funds cleared. it is far from a 'gravytrain' or an indulgent free-for-all for self-satisfied snobs (as dilbert makes out). i've made it perfectly clear many times here in the past how competitive and cut-throat the world of academic funding/employment is. an academic will have to 'justify' their stipends at every single stage in their career; they're not called research 'awards' for nothing. it's a big deal to be given public money to do work in academia - it's noteworthy, it builds careers. they don't take it lightly. but, having their right to research what is intellectually valid and worthy in-itself ("knowledge for knowledge's sake") is an important tenet of academia. forcing your nation's intelligentsia to research politically-charged topics, or chase some whimsical fashion/trend down a knowledge-rabbithole for a few years, until the next fad comes along... is not a way to govern and manage institutions with centuries of independent civic service to their name.
dilbert ridicules some universities for maintaining (small) departmental researchers in things like the medieval age. okay, i'm not going to get into that again, but following his rationalisation and insistence on 'use', the other side of the coin would basically mean you'd have complete english/philosophy departments now pumping out ersatz research on "portrayals of climate change: from odysseus to crusoe", or "vegetarianism and the court-drama" or something stupid like that. the present always has a bad habit of being interpellated with the ideology of the day. what we think today is coldly rational and objectively 'good' will look, in many cases, like total folly in 100 years' time. it's just not good to try and 'shape' the research of knowledge to an End; it's antithetical.
every time a researcher writes a proposal or applies for funding, they have to go through volumes of expensive/time-consuming paperwork, to get those funds cleared. it is far from a 'gravytrain' or an indulgent free-for-all for self-satisfied snobs (as dilbert makes out). i've made it perfectly clear many times here in the past how competitive and cut-throat the world of academic funding/employment is. an academic will have to 'justify' their stipends at every single stage in their career; they're not called research 'awards' for nothing. it's a big deal to be given public money to do work in academia - it's noteworthy, it builds careers. they don't take it lightly. but, having their right to research what is intellectually valid and worthy in-itself ("knowledge for knowledge's sake") is an important tenet of academia. forcing your nation's intelligentsia to research politically-charged topics, or chase some whimsical fashion/trend down a knowledge-rabbithole for a few years, until the next fad comes along... is not a way to govern and manage institutions with centuries of independent civic service to their name.
dilbert ridicules some universities for maintaining (small) departmental researchers in things like the medieval age. okay, i'm not going to get into that again, but following his rationalisation and insistence on 'use', the other side of the coin would basically mean you'd have complete english/philosophy departments now pumping out ersatz research on "portrayals of climate change: from odysseus to crusoe", or "vegetarianism and the court-drama" or something stupid like that. the present always has a bad habit of being interpellated with the ideology of the day. what we think today is coldly rational and objectively 'good' will look, in many cases, like total folly in 100 years' time. it's just not good to try and 'shape' the research of knowledge to an End; it's antithetical.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-07 17:36:36)
It's public money extracted from the populace by politicians. You don't think politicians can/should demand a say? They're (supposedly) the peoples defense against graft in the public sector. It's one of the primary reasons we elect them, to represent us, the taxpayer.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
they don't complain about being asked to 'justify' their research, though. there's a big difference between having to justify/make relevant your research, and having to tailor it to politically-mandated or managerially-appointed 'criteria'. a big difference. that difference is the whole principle of 'free inquiry', or 'intellectual autonomy', if you will. making sure that research progresses according to intellectual curiosity and the inner logic of reason, rather than collaring academia into being a whippet for the ruling elite (with whatever political/social agendas they may wish to push). chaining academia to a political program is disastrous.
every time a researcher writes a proposal or applies for funding, they have to go through volumes of expensive/time-consuming paperwork, to get those funds cleared. it is far from a 'gravytrain' or an indulgent free-for-all for self-satisfied snobs (as dilbert makes out). i've made it perfectly clear many times here in the past how competitive and cut-throat the world of academic funding/employment is. an academic will have to 'justify' their stipends at every single stage in their career; they're not called research 'awards' for nothing. it's a big deal to be given public money to do work in academia - it's noteworthy, it builds careers. they don't take it lightly. but, having their right to research what is intellectually valid and worthy in-itself ("knowledge for knowledge's sake") is an important tenet of academia. forcing your nation's intelligentsia to research politically-charged topics, or chase some whimsical fashion/trend down a knowledge-rabbithole for a few years, until the next fad comes along... is not a way to govern and manage institutions with centuries of independent civic service to their name.
If you don't like the new strings, feel free to go back to the old way and find a rich philanthropist sponsor to support your work. Hell, that's how we figured out 99% of the important things in the realm of science.
Last edited by Jay (2013-05-07 17:36:33)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
again: difference between a politician wanting the research money to be well-spent/put towards high-quality research that has 'impact' (impact is literally the term used in english research proposals, meaning new research that drives forward academic knowledge) and between a politician prescribing a demagogic program. the people holding the purse are more than entitled to make sure the money is well-spent; they are not, however, welcome to impose their particular parties' policies on the discourses of reason/academia. if that were truly allowed to happen, the university would need to be radically reshuffled/redirected every time the partisan coin flipped. it would be stupid.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-07 17:39:09)
Well, you do understand that he has every right to bitch about things like that, yes? (Or would if he were still paying taxes in England) You're very proud of having a publicly funded education system, well, by making it public you open yourselves to criticism from the public that pays for it. If Harvard decided to fund a department stocked with former child molesters the only people who would/could have a real say in expressing outrage would be the alumni they hit up for donations and the current student body. In both cases, the college, if such a department were found revolting enough, would experience a drop in funding. When you are a public institution you have to expect increased scrutiny and potential revocation of funding if what your institution does is not politically palatable. That's the tradeoff.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
dilbert ridicules some universities for maintaining (small) departmental researchers in things like the medieval age. okay, i'm not going to get into that again, but following his rationalisation and insistence on 'use', the other side of the coin would basically mean you'd have complete english/philosophy departments now pumping out ersatz research on "portrayals of climate change: from odysseus to crusoe", or "vegetarianism and the court-drama" or something stupid like that. the present always has a bad habit of being interpellated with the ideology of the day. what we think today is coldly rational and objectively 'good' will look, in many cases, like total folly in 100 years' time. it's just not good to try and 'shape' the research of knowledge to an End; it's antithetical.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Now all they need to do is demonstrate some linkage between govt spending on 'arts' and actual turnover in the art/culture part of the economy.Uzique wrote:
arts and culture make up 0.4 per cent of *GDP – a significant return on the less than 0.1 per cent of government spending invested in the sector
I bet there's none.
And yet produces only 0.4% of GDP, so its less efficient than average.the arts and culture sector provides 0.45 per cent of total UK employment and 0.48 per cent of total employment in England
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-08 02:14:15)
Fuck Israel
Nope, I wouldn't be having people concocting absurd excuses to fill their time and then funding them, if they can't come up with something worthwhile then there's nothing for them to 'research' is there?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
dilbert ridicules some universities for maintaining (small) departmental researchers in things like the medieval age. okay, i'm not going to get into that again, but following his rationalisation and insistence on 'use', the other side of the coin would basically mean you'd have complete english/philosophy departments now pumping out ersatz research on "portrayals of climate change: from odysseus to crusoe", or "vegetarianism and the court-drama" or something stupid like that. the present always has a bad habit of being interpellated with the ideology of the day. what we think today is coldly rational and objectively 'good' will look, in many cases, like total folly in 100 years' time. it's just not good to try and 'shape' the research of knowledge to an End; it's antithetical.
(Still waiting for you to point to a single example of a literature dept anywhere doing a worthwhile piece of research)
Fuck Israel
(still waiting for you to grasp the very basic fact that there's more than one definition of 'worthwhile': scientific use and 'progress' isn't the be-all-and-end-all. obtuse moron. you don't make 'discoveries' in humanities, because you are studying thought/writing that necessarily already has to exist or have a framework in tradition. how do you do a literature doctorate without relying on literature that has already been written? but then you say it's "backwards looking". lol...)
and you and jay lack a striking proficiency in basic reading, it seems.
seems like a fine way to spend public money to me. it has a 400% ROI. "less efficient than average"? uuuh. i think the government would be doing skips of glee all the way to the chancery if they could generate 400% return on all of their public spending.
and you and jay lack a striking proficiency in basic reading, it seems.
And yet produces only 0.4% of GDP, so its less efficient than average.
arts and culture generate more per pound invested than the health, wholesale and retail, and professional and business services sectors
seems like a fine way to spend public money to me. it has a 400% ROI. "less efficient than average"? uuuh. i think the government would be doing skips of glee all the way to the chancery if they could generate 400% return on all of their public spending.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 04:26:33)
'Arts and culture' would no doubt generate plenty of GDP without any govt funding at all, considering as many tourists will likely be coming to see Andrew Lloyd-Webber musicals as anything. Perhaps arts funding should be redirected from Tracey Emin et al to subsidising re-runs of 'Cats' and 'Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat'?
400% ROI? If there were no govt spending it would be infinity% ROI. If the govt doubled spending the return would barely increase so the 'ROI' would be 200%, so by that logic the govt should cut funding to make the figures look better.
ROI is the wrong term to be using when there is no clear linkage.
How much does the govt spend on the countryside? How many tourists come to see the Lake District and the Highlands?
The ROI is infinity% there also apparently....
(Still disappointed you can't come with anything which even looks like it could be worthwhile research in the field of literature)
400% ROI? If there were no govt spending it would be infinity% ROI. If the govt doubled spending the return would barely increase so the 'ROI' would be 200%, so by that logic the govt should cut funding to make the figures look better.
ROI is the wrong term to be using when there is no clear linkage.
How much does the govt spend on the countryside? How many tourists come to see the Lake District and the Highlands?
The ROI is infinity% there also apparently....
(Still disappointed you can't come with anything which even looks like it could be worthwhile research in the field of literature)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-08 04:34:54)
Fuck Israel
You'll have noticed the lines don't join up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
Well played, King of the Derp.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-08 04:37:16)
Fuck Israel
lol wow you really are dumb as shit. the publicly funded arts - the study doesn't count the private sector, which yes, i'm sure makes plenty of money as it is, so that's hardly assailable by your mong philistinism - makes 4x as much money for the UK economy as the government puts in. and yet you think the initial investment is somehow 'wrong'? "infinity ROI"? LOL. public arts and culture in the UK are a huge part of our tourism trade (nearly a billion pounds annually on this sector). public arts and culture make a huge profit, going back into the public purse. and yet you think it's better to have the spreadsheet ROI of "infinity". hahahaha. you are so divorced from reality with your seething resentments. here's a little protip in the world of govt/public spending: if a government can use taxpayers money on something that offers a service/product/benefit, which then puts back even more money into the same public spending pot/circulation, then that is generally a very good way to run a country. "infinity ROI" sounds great and all, but it's not really how government spending works. LOL. i'm sure everyone would be happy paying their taxes if the government then said "we're just going to keep all of your money this year in our account - it gives infinity ROI!!!!!"
great job being able to read an information graphic. the image shows that those are the two main sides considering funding proposals in the arts/humanities. a research proposal has to satisfy both 'sides' - it has to be academically valid and have impact in the economy/society. otherwise it DOESN'T GET THE MONEY.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.Dilbert_X wrote:
You'll have noticed the lines don't join up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
Well played, King of the Derp.
great job being able to read an information graphic. the image shows that those are the two main sides considering funding proposals in the arts/humanities. a research proposal has to satisfy both 'sides' - it has to be academically valid and have impact in the economy/society. otherwise it DOESN'T GET THE MONEY.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 04:42:36)