Security of tenure Puns

Three, if anyone is unsure...

The title may seem a bit provocative, and while I hope to have a stimulating debate, I would also like to say I truly understand the human side in this: having worked your ass of to finally get some job security with tenure, you probably don't want to be told it's irrelevant. I don't want to advocate against tenure -- I feel it is a minimum level of human decency to have some job security at least. I also get that it is easier to stake out long term research goals if you know where you will be in the next ten years. My question is more if it is needed for independent science not controlled by external powers (eg funding agencies).

I have always been told that the main reason to give tenure to university professor, and to give them such a high level of job security, is simply because you want to make sure they can carry out their research without risk being fired for political reasons related to their research. You let them research "whatever they want", and thus maintain independent research in academia without interference from any outside forces. Professors are free to oppose, so to speak. They are also free to have integrity.

However, the current path to tenure is long and strenenous. To get there, you better make sure your research has been in a popular field, that it is well-received amog research peers, and that it has been well-funded by funding agencies. In short, to get tenure, you need to fit into the system, not go against it. Already here you filter out "disrupters" to some extent, and you reward behaviour that follows the funding agencies. In essence, until you are tenured, you need to obey the funding agencies, and you need to be accepted among your peers.

Once you get tenure, you are a little more free, but most research today needs the help of grad students, postdocs, maybe even lab equipment and lab workers. A lot of this is again financed by grants, and to get those you need to obey the wishes of the funding agencies, and you need to be somewhat accepted by your broader research community. All of this simply leads to your research being controlled once more by "politics", and unless you want to sit on your desk alone with your own thoughts, it won't allow to diverge much from the main wants of thee funding agencies.

What are your thoughts? Is the high job security of tenure irrelevant for scientific independence, or does it still have some value in the modern world?

I don't usually wish bad on players and coaches who have left. Most of the times I want to see them do well. Applies for BI, Zo, Wagner, Zubac and hell even Hart with all those little cheap shots by him.

But watching Luke Walton coach the team last season made my blood boil and raised my blood pressure so many times. I just couldn't stand the sight of him looking clueless after his braindead rotations and horrible plays out of the Timeouts.

And to think the shit LeBron got when it was revealed that Rich Paul had told Adam Silver about Luke Walton not being the right coach for LeBron. Amazing.

And, Kings really sacked a coach like Dave Joerger who made them play such entertaining basketball and made them relevant and a threatening team in about a decade only to hire Luke Walton LOL!

Hi all, I was just wondering what the view point is of John Major’s time in government is? I’m trying to do an essay on his leadership style and was wondering if anyone else would have anything to add to the topics I’ve discussed.

From doing political studies it seemed as if he was marred by numerous issues from the get go:

•You had the hardcore Eurorebels becoming a driving force within the party and divisions with him signing the Maastricht Treaty - leading to the formation of the EU as we know it now. This caused rife internal divisions and fractured the party internally (still playing out till this day!)

•His style was also rather weak, no charisma, boring, very accountant like - not strong and iron-willed like the way Thatcher and Blair were. They could afford dominance and came across very uncompromising, leading to a better image of power. Seemed as if he lacked a back-bone and strong views. Didn’t help matters too that Spitting Image lampooned and ran with this image to the masses - reflecting the overall “dull as dishwater” perception.

•Leadership contests also done a lot to undermine him too

•Black Wednesday also caused his government a major black streak, showing that perhaps it was wrong at the time for him to join the ERM (undertaken when he was Chancellor) furthering the EU rebels. The economy was also in a recession and of course this didn’t bode well for the Tory’s ‘Safe Hands’ image.

•You then had his infamous ‘Back To Basics’ campaign being marred by numerous sex and moral scandals, ironic considering the whole campaign was meant to be a return to the ‘core family values’ that the party wanted to push.

•His cabinet was then brought further into dispute with the ‘Cash for Questions’ affair.

•Losing his majority too was also a major issue - his government could only rely on the UUP support for so long and was in critical condition.

However despite these issues I think he also had some redeeming qualities:

•Was the driving force for the GFA, worked in secret with SF and the other major parties to ensure a end to the conflict (whist Tony Blair was the one who signed it, it really was Major’s prerogative) which I think is rather odd for a Conservative PM with all of the past history of Thatcher. More of a liberal One-Nation Tory I feel in his style and also of his character.

•His style wasn’t authoritarian, it was more of a pragmatic and civilised discussion between cabinet ministers - not just going for his view and driv

> A Wizards source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that Pollin's decision was based on three reasons: player dissension, a franchise faltering after the years of Jordan in charge, and deteriorating relationships throughout the organization.

In the 15 years with Grunfeld in control we've had constant locker room turmoil with cancers like JaVale McGee, Nick Young, Andray Blatche, and Marcin Gortat without even mentioning the time when Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton (who's in prison btw for murdering a mother of 4 in a drive-by) pulled fucking guns on each other in the locker room. Grunfeld still has a job somehow despite all of this and despite the fact that he's never advanced to a Conference Final or even won 50 games in a season but somehow this talentless hack keeps his job

Players for NT included from 23/25 man squads for WC/EURO + all players called up in the last 12 months.

Included only 10m+ players.

2003 - 2005 Sevilla

2005 - 2020 Real Madrid

2005 - 2020 Spanish National Team

My top eleven would be: https://i.imgur.com/d1BfRmi.png

What would be yours?

Source for data and market value is transfermarkt.

Top Market value: €355m

Top Market value: €596m

Álvaro Arb

Assuming he slows down over the next two years but stays relatively healthy and is able to average something like 21/7/7 on the last year of his contract, is there a team desperate enough to give him a 4 year max at age 37?