What do you use to sensitize the board? Or do you buy presensitized?
--
J
__________________________________________
http://www.jbuckle.homeip.net << My personal site
http://www.aoskc.com << Ainsdale Kitesurf Club
> In message <Kd-dnaNGWdHMdYfbnZ2dnUVZ8tyqnZ2d@bt.com>, Coyoteboy
> <coyoteboyuk@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:I5gaazCOJNGGFwhx@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
>>> I don't work my ass off contributing my tax pounds to fund them for
>>> nothing,
>>
>>I dont wish to throw a spanner in the works but your tax pounds have very
>>little to do with UK universities these days.
> Hmm, sense of humour bypass detected, donning flameproof attire. I would
> say though, that if a penny of my taxes went to funding 'surf science'
> or Travel and tourism courses, then I'd consider it wasted (WTF is a
> travel and tourism course anyway?), I would much rather see the little
> that universities do get of my tax pound going to fund 'proper' courses
> instead of the bull*h*t 'we've got more graduates than you' games the
> government has been playing for years now.
Totally agree, and yes a slight humour bypass - I tend to get defensive when
people attack the institutions I work for and have spent the last 8 years
doing 80 hour weeks to progress in, its only natural. And yes, we too skit
the mickey mouse degrees. Just be wary of tarring all "students" with the
same brush thats all :)
J
Reply by Coyoteboy●April 10, 20072007-04-10
john jardine proclaimed to alt.electronics ...
>
> "Coyoteboy" <coyoteboyuk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Kd-dnaNGWdHMdYfbnZ2dnUVZ8tyqnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:I5gaazCOJNGGFwhx@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
>> > I don't work my ass off contributing my tax pounds to fund them for
>> > nothing,
>>
>> I dont wish to throw a spanner in the works but your tax pounds have very
>> little to do with UK universities these days. The vast majority of
>> undergraduate student funding is done by a)charging foreign students
>> extra (at least �11K per year, more depending on the course) to cover
>> the loss left over from only b)charging the home students 3K a year. Most
> university
>> equipment is funded through industrially linked research (and industrial
>> donations), which has to be fully economically costed, meaning all
> projects
>> have to be run as a business would including all costs inc office space,
>> technician time etc counted and charged to the project account - so they
>> cannot be considered to have an unfair advantage over industry. Research
>> council grants form a percentage of the money given to universities, but
>> only generally cover postgraduate projects which have to be fully
> justified
>> and peer reviewed before acceptance. And even they are sponsored by
>> industry. If a group does not pull in funding for a year or two it is
>> effectively canned.
>>
>> Uni's arent the public tax black hole they used to be, which is WHY they
>> have been forced (against their will, trust me) to create "micky mouse"
>> degrees which pull in people who will pay to do a course which takes
> little
>> supervision and still generates the same cash per head. To have purely
>> "useful" degrees for the small minority who can acheive them through
>> skill and interest, as opposed to just taking it as a way to muck about
>> for 3 years, is not financially viable - that target market is too small
>> and
> could
>> not collectively afford the actual cost of their tuition. If you want
>> them to drop their "micky mouse" degrees then you WILL pay for it in
>> taxes!
>>
>
> We, the people, gave the uni's �7 Billion this year, seems more than a
> 'very little'. They also garnered an additional �6 Billion by the means
> you mention.
Not sure where you get your figures from, or if you see how they are split
down and attributed to what - as i say, most funding doesnt go to the
undergrad students.
Reply by john jardine●April 10, 20072007-04-10
"Coyoteboy" <coyoteboyuk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kd-dnaNGWdHMdYfbnZ2dnUVZ8tyqnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:I5gaazCOJNGGFwhx@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
> > I don't work my ass off contributing my tax pounds to fund them for
> > nothing,
>
> I dont wish to throw a spanner in the works but your tax pounds have very
> little to do with UK universities these days. The vast majority of
> undergraduate student funding is done by a)charging foreign students extra
> (at least �11K per year, more depending on the course) to cover the loss
> left over from only b)charging the home students 3K a year. Most
university
> equipment is funded through industrially linked research (and industrial
> donations), which has to be fully economically costed, meaning all
projects
> have to be run as a business would including all costs inc office space,
> technician time etc counted and charged to the project account - so they
> cannot be considered to have an unfair advantage over industry. Research
> council grants form a percentage of the money given to universities, but
> only generally cover postgraduate projects which have to be fully
justified
> and peer reviewed before acceptance. And even they are sponsored by
> industry. If a group does not pull in funding for a year or two it is
> effectively canned.
>
> Uni's arent the public tax black hole they used to be, which is WHY they
> have been forced (against their will, trust me) to create "micky mouse"
> degrees which pull in people who will pay to do a course which takes
little
> supervision and still generates the same cash per head. To have purely
> "useful" degrees for the small minority who can acheive them through skill
> and interest, as opposed to just taking it as a way to muck about for 3
> years, is not financially viable - that target market is too small and
could
> not collectively afford the actual cost of their tuition. If you want them
> to drop their "micky mouse" degrees then you WILL pay for it in taxes!
>
We, the people, gave the uni's �7 Billion this year, seems more than a 'very
little'. They also garnered an additional �6 Billion by the means you
mention.
As a taxpayer, I -expect and want- to pay taxes for higher education. I want
this country to be a centre of excellence and am happy to contribute to this
end.
I am very unhappy to have to pay for the education of media studies
graduates, golf course designers and the other dalliances.
The mickey mouse degrees are actually a true reflection of our present
social culture and are here to stay. Few youngsters want the work entailed
studying subjects that would benefit the country in an industrial sense and
as the media studies people et al invariably come from well off, middle
class backgrounds and can pay their own way, then it's time the uni's were
forgotten and my taxes spent in more worthy areas. (Honest!).
1% of the population now own 50% of the country's wealth. 50% of the
population own 1%, hence the country is becoming little more than a large
offshore banking operation. Vastly wealthy bankers supported by a huge army
of servant workers. Industry? Technology?, forget it.
The Swiss are remembered for their Cuckoo clocks, we'll be remembered for
our bad plumbing.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by Clint Sharp●April 10, 20072007-04-10
In message <Kd-dnaNGWdHMdYfbnZ2dnUVZ8tyqnZ2d@bt.com>, Coyoteboy
<coyoteboyuk@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:I5gaazCOJNGGFwhx@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
>> I don't work my ass off contributing my tax pounds to fund them for
>> nothing,
>
>I dont wish to throw a spanner in the works but your tax pounds have very
>little to do with UK universities these days.
Hmm, sense of humour bypass detected, donning flameproof attire. I would
say though, that if a penny of my taxes went to funding 'surf science'
or Travel and tourism courses, then I'd consider it wasted (WTF is a
travel and tourism course anyway?), I would much rather see the little
that universities do get of my tax pound going to fund 'proper' courses
instead of the bull*h*t 'we've got more graduates than you' games the
government has been playing for years now.
>If you want them
>to drop their "micky mouse" degrees then you WILL pay for it in taxes!
I have great fun taking the p*ss out of 'students' on Travel and
Tourism courses, hell, my niece is one (nice girl, recently got a full
page spread exposing her as a binge drinker in her Uni town evening rag)
and dumb as a post, but, bless, she'll have a degree at the end of it
all if she can manage to keep her head out of the toilet long enough to
show up for a lecture or two so she should be ideally qualified to ask
if I want fries with that when I next visit McD's in her home town. You
imply I would deprive myself of that amusement.
>
--
Clint Sharp
Reply by Coyoteboy●April 9, 20072007-04-09
"Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:I5gaazCOJNGGFwhx@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
> I don't work my ass off contributing my tax pounds to fund them for
> nothing,
I dont wish to throw a spanner in the works but your tax pounds have very
little to do with UK universities these days. The vast majority of
undergraduate student funding is done by a)charging foreign students extra
(at least �11K per year, more depending on the course) to cover the loss
left over from only b)charging the home students 3K a year. Most university
equipment is funded through industrially linked research (and industrial
donations), which has to be fully economically costed, meaning all projects
have to be run as a business would including all costs inc office space,
technician time etc counted and charged to the project account - so they
cannot be considered to have an unfair advantage over industry. Research
council grants form a percentage of the money given to universities, but
only generally cover postgraduate projects which have to be fully justified
and peer reviewed before acceptance. And even they are sponsored by
industry. If a group does not pull in funding for a year or two it is
effectively canned.
Uni's arent the public tax black hole they used to be, which is WHY they
have been forced (against their will, trust me) to create "micky mouse"
degrees which pull in people who will pay to do a course which takes little
supervision and still generates the same cash per head. To have purely
"useful" degrees for the small minority who can acheive them through skill
and interest, as opposed to just taking it as a way to muck about for 3
years, is not financially viable - that target market is too small and could
not collectively afford the actual cost of their tuition. If you want them
to drop their "micky mouse" degrees then you WILL pay for it in taxes!
Reply by ●April 9, 20072007-04-09
"Paul Carpenter" <paul$@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20070409.2210.327878snz@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk...
>
> >Erm. I've just bought it!! :-) It's BIG!
>
>
> ^
> ^
> I bet you say that to all the men :-^
>
Why yes, yes I do Paul.
Reply by ●April 9, 20072007-04-09
On Monday, in article
<qMadncGAC5kFPYfbnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com>
,shfskfjsf@sliuflky4iuhdf.erl "Aly" wrote:
>"Paul Carpenter" <paul$@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:20070409.1344.327862snz@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk...
>> On Monday, in article
>> <gbudnXRs0-xVrIfbnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@bt.com>
>> ,shfskfjsf@sliuflky4iuhdf.erl "Aly" wrote:
>>
><SNIP>
>
>Hey Paul,
>
>Long time..
Yes indeed, expect email; about Hedgehog status....