If they tax virtual currencies then we should be able to deduct all of our expenditures on video games, computers, game consols, Internet connections, TV, Stereo, game controller, and any other equipment/services that we use to play the games. After all, we are using them in our own personal businesses in order to generate virtual money.
I don't know what you are talking about, almost everyone in Florida has an irrigation system and uses it for 6 months a year. During the dry season the grass will dry up and die without irrigation. I don't think people should use grass in Florida, it isn't native and hogs valuable groundwater reserves. The recent increase in sinkhole formation in Florida is correlated with the decline in the water table, particularly in Central Florida. Sinkholes are a natural occurrence but they haven't happened nearly as often historically as recently. Very few people there use native plants to fill their yards and I really think everyone should.
My experience bore this out. Of course, a resume is only to get a foot in the door. You can use (or prospective future employees) can bypass that step and use contacts to land an interview.
I agree, contacts are the number 1 way to land a job. However, I disagree with your thought on 2 pages or less on length. If the resume is for academia I would recommend whatever length it takes to list the skills and responsibilities you have. For almost any other job a one-page resume is the best. From my experiences evaluating potential employees, anything over 1 page goes to the bottom of the pile and only gets looked at if the one-page resumes are not good enough/extensive enough to find a good interview pool. If I have received a flood of resumes the two+ pagers get thrown in a folder to be thrown away.
The number one rule of resume writing is to highlight what you have done in your past (particularly your recent past) that will translate into benefits for the potential employer. Stay away from words like responsible and use action words such as implemented.
Personally I only list the last three-four jobs, my degrees, awards/accomplishments that I feel are worth listing and applicable to the situation. Awards and accomplishments have a limited life span and shouldn't really be used for more than about 5-10 years. Previous experience is a bit trickier, I have several versions of my resume that I keep around with different experiences. As a returning grad student my work experience changes depending on which job I am looking to land. For example I am not positive about the field I wish to go into, either consulting or project management. For the consulting resume I use previous experiences that highlight my ability to work with the customer, and my ability to perform a wide variety of technical as well as business related tasks. For the project management resume I highlight previous management experiences in an IT role, project management skills/experience, change management experience, and my technical expertise in an IT environment. I use the same jobs and titles, just different experiences depending on the role I am looking for.
"I'm not an airfoil expert, but it seems to me a well-designed modern windmill should have a minimal noise level - no more, and probably much less, than a tree of the same size."
Actually most of the noise appears to come from the turbine itself, not the airfoils. At high speeds you can hear the electricity arcing and it can make a defining noise. A more efficient turbine would probably help, but her technology is relatively old. I don't think her turbine was really designed for such high wind speeds but it was about all that was commercially available at the time. Inside her house it isn't too much of a problem because it is extremely well insulated (to handle the extreme temperatures she experiences in the winter of -40F or more). To improve efficiency her house is primarily constructed from insulating blocks with a very high insulation rating (similar to styrofoam but much stronger, I can't remember the name of the material) and has a very open floor plan so that 1 large wood stove and a small second one are able to heat the entire 3 bedroom house.
"WRT batteries, interesting new fuel cell technologies are appearing lately, using many different 'fuels' - ammonia, for example. I wonder if some of these might be workable for large scale home-built static systems like this?"
Battery technology is definitely improving and the use of toxic chemicals is going down with the improvements so it isn't such a big issue in the future. The problem with current storage techniques is the expense, I am not positive about the $ amount invested in batteries but I know that she has spent more on batteries than on the wind turbine and solar panels. She was definitely an early adopter and had 1 solar bank and 1 turbine at least 8 years ago. She recently finished her house and added a better battery bank and a second solar array to all but eliminate her generator usage.
"If your aunt has enough acreage, she might even consider a methane or alcohol digester - a biomass fermentation processor. She could pile a couple of acres' worth of grass and leaves in and get enough fuel to heat and cook with for a year."
She does have the acreage to grow enough biomass to have a digester, but with the small amount of gas she uses it doesn't make economic sense to invest in the digester. It may also be difficult to maintain and make usable in the cold winters she experiences since any liquid will be frozen for long periods without digging well into the side of the mountain which is very expensive. Also the growing conditions aren't very good being on the side of a mountain.
In my opinion, all new homes built in sensitive and remote areas should be built using her model. It is pretty amazing to be almost completely self sufficient this day in age. The only real source of energy she needs is gas for her car... if the weather wasn't so extreme I would recommend that she get a diesel car and convert it to run on used oil, although restaurants are also few and far between where she is.
I have an Aunt in Montana that has had one of these types of setups for years. She also lives in an area where none of her neighbors even want power lines so if she wanted them she would have to pay for about 10-12 miles of installation. She also has a solar bank, all wired to batteries. All heat comes from wood she gets from dead trees on her own property. I only see two problems with her setup. First the windmill can get extreemly loud, especially with the kind of wind speeds she experiences (often reaching 80 mph with gusts well over 100 mph). Secondly the batteries are expensive and have to be replaced frequently. All of those toxic chemicals floating around isn't good although they can be recycled. I still think she is much better off, she is immune to oil/coal price increases and can be totaly self sufficient. The only enery source she actually buys is propane to run her gas powered fridge and occasional use of her generator when her batteries are being serviced. I am actually quite impressed with her setup.
When you buy into a homeowners/condo association you don't typically own the land, it is communal. You own the building itself and have waived certain rights buy purchasing it. Read a set of documents and it is all clear. Think about a condo, what piece of land is yours vs. the communities. Homeowner associations tyically have the same rules. All land is shared and you have the obligation to maintain certain outside apperances. Do what you want on the inside, but you have agreed to follow the association rule by purchasing the home. It is all clear and legal, if you don't like it just leave or don't buy, no one is forcing you to buy/stay. Not allowing associations would actually infringe upon your rights more. There are usually many benifits associated with associations. They usually get good deals on landscaping, everything external is maintained for you, your property value is typically higher, and you typcally get some added security. If in your mind the benifits outweigh the costs you have your right to not be a part of it, but don't take away the rights of those who have decided they think the benifits outweigh the costs.
I used to work at a community management company and I hated dealing with the fights between homeowners, but the problem really isn't the power of the associations, it is that people move into them without looking at the documents. I would not buy a home in an association unless it was a vacation home. Realtors are actually the biggest problem because the often mislead buyers about what they are getting into. If you don't want to deal with an associations rules then don't buy in, it's that simple.
"I don't disagree that reading is important to good writing; however, I'd dispute that it is more important."
I would agree to some extent with your point, but without reading well-written material one has nothing to base what is effective and what is not. It is kind of like the chicken and the egg, you can't have one without the other. Reading well-written material is the basis for taking the next step. Obviously little practice will produce poor results, but I am sure that while in grad school I have improved my writing even more than in undergrad and actually write relatively little. In B-school we are forced to write short essays (most are from 1-3 pages), but we read thousands of pages of Harvard Case Studies, which tend to be well written. We are also expected to read the WSJ and Business Week. My writing has improved more by reading those than my own practice, although I am sure that practicing reinforces what I learn by reading.
Our educational system (particularly high-school and most undergraduate college programs)emphasize the technical aspects of writing rather than a balance between technical and effective. Being able to articulate a point is critical to advancement outside of school yet that skill is almost completely ignored. Some classes claim to teach that skill yet my experience has always been that the technical side is what is graded.
The Gordon Rule also applies to college. As someone who started college with no sense of direction, tried a few community college courses, then actually returned to school with motivation I have mixed feelings on the rule. I ended up fulfilling the Gordon Rule two times over (if I remember it was 6 courses with about 6,000 words each)
I do feel that practice makes perfect and the more times an instructor/grader points out mistakes you should learn to not make them again. I still have problems with some things such as comma usage, but my writing is much better and my grammar is far superior as a result. I had always scored high in math and poor in English before my undergraduate studies, upon graduation and taking the GMAT my scores were reversed.
The biggest problem with the Gordon Rule is that so many courses don't transfer from University to University. I had to double the requirement in order to finally graduate as a result of differing courses offered at different Universities.
The other problem with the Gordon Rule is that reading is probably just as, if not more, critical in learning to write effectively. One must learn to write properly by reading well-written material. Textbooks are poor examples of effective writing, and most Gordon Rule classes emphasize textbooks and journals as the sources to draw upon in preparing an essay. These sources are full of boring academic material that puts anyone to sleep (not that they aren't important, they are just poor examples of preparing an effective communication). Some of the best sources for good writing examples are classical literature and major credible media sources such as the WSJ (stay off the political slants, most major media sources have good editors that help make sure that the writing is in good form).
I worked for a company in this boat and although I enjoyed the work, they pay was dismal, employee turnover was high, and eventually after my departure the shop closed its doors. The problem with this environment is that employees know that their skills are valuable once they have been in the field for a while. Pay at my company ranged from $10-$25/hour based on the arrangements. I actually went from a flat rate to commission to a combinataion and back through all of the cycles again. flat pay plus commission probably worked best for all parties because at that point if I didn't have billable time I didn't work very much. If I was busy I banked. The biggest problem we had was that we did our own billing and I saw that my time was billed for anywhere from $65-$150/hour depending on the type of work and the time it was done. Even if you don't see what your time is billed at it is relatively easy to get a good estimate and most employees will figure this out quickly.
The only way to keep both the employee and employer happy for a prolonged period of time is if you can pay a commission and keep the employee busy 30+ hours a week. The large degree of fluctionations in our business is part of what led to my departure, I knew I was worth more like $30-40/hour at the time and my pay was closer to $20. A prolonged slump will kill morale for commission based employees and kills the owner for flat rate employees.
These shops are best suited as a training ground for new talent with a relatively small empoyee base. Larger companies of this sort can typically pay more because of efficiencies of scale and will likely take the more talented employees from smaller firms. Internal organizations are another major competitor and actually offered several of the people from my old shop jobs which they took. I personally left for a combination of pay, personal conflict with the owner, and a desire to run a business unit that acted like a business rather than a tech shop with little to no growth potential.
The use of riders is one of the worst institutions that the government has ever allowed. It is much worse than Internet gambling. I propose that the legislature tacks two bills onto the next defense appropriations bill... each act of legislation should pertain to one issue... and for every bill that is passed one has to be thrown out (with the exception of budget appropriations which have to be recurring and essentially override the previous appropriations bills).
The tactic of using riders is just like buying off a player in an athletic event in order to influence the outcome of a game.
"Myth #8: The idea is the most important part of my business plan."
The idea is really such a smal component. Engineers and Ph.D's tend to have a problem with this in particular. They always want the perfect product. The important part is finding the point of the marginal value curve that meets the market, then finding a way to exploit that market and excluding the competition from taking your market space. Not that the idea is the easy part, bu when compared to the rest of a business plan it is a very small thing. Millions of people have great ideas, turning them into a product that meets the end customers needs/wants is the real challenge.
Microsoft thrives on crushing the competition, hence they are always dealing with competition. Even if competition is scarce in the spaces they operate in, having no competition usually means a lack of a potential market.
"Two words: iPod and iTunes..... I'm not saying they are easy to find one but there are a few lucrative market niches that have been left completely unexploited and the funny part is that most of them are so bloody obvious that most people manage to overlook them."
Both of those markets already existed. Apple was the only company that decided that having the most user-friendly interface was the most important idea. The Rio was out years before the iPod, it just had a difficult to use interface. MP3's being sold was also an existing idea, actually working out a deal with the music industry was the key to their success.
"You mak a strong, reasonable argument. Am I mistaken that you mentioned you went to a private school?" Yes, I did attend a private high school for the last few years.. I also went to public schools and have spent a long time in public universities. It took me 10 years to get around to finishing my undergrad (take a couple of classes, take a year or two of, repeat the process until one day I woke up and said I need to get that piece of paper.) Now I am in grad school and work for the University. My college is very particular about using the money in the way it was intended, although we are a business school and are relatively different from the rest of the university.
"But as a side note (in your favor), I've often wondered what makes sports so popular with the public"
That is probably the question to be answered. I don't really understand why either although I am a huge football fan. I am actually willing to trave 12 hours one way to make a football game at my undergrad university. I can't explain it. I do't really get into any other sport, I'll watch a little basketball, or the World Series but i am not much of a follower of those sports. I am not at the fanatical level of some of my friends that know all of the players and stats, but I am still a big football fan (Go Noles!!!).
"I'm Ooogh, mighty hunter and slayer of rivals!" instincts/mentality?...
That is probably the root of it, or it is just our competitive nature that helped humans evolve to be the top living organism on the planet (don't flame me over this just because humans do tons of idiodic things like war and polution, and yes according to Douglas Adams we are #3). I could also be the way many of us were raised, playing pee-wee football, little league, etc. Heck, when I was in high school I had a friend that would compete with me in algebra (who was faster, who go the higher grade, who could sleep more in class). I think it all comes from the same inner force and don't think that anyone can really explain it. A psychologist could probably become world renowned if he/she could figure this one out.
On a side note, one public university that I can speak about personally is FSU and their use of funds from sports. They have build one of the nices stadiums in the country, but use no money from academics to improve it. Actually the stadium houses their world renowned film school, and most of the administrative offices. This is they way that the two should work together, and it is horrible that it doesn't work like that more often. Here at my grad school all of the athletic buildings are single use, although they did use them to recruit us B-school students. (They took us up to the skybox, put a spotlight on the seats that we could get which were great 1-3 row on the 30 yard line, and fed us a world class meal.) I think they use these tactics as a dual purpose role, they attract students by showing them the skybox which if we are successfull we will be able to buy seats in, then they also show us that we should donate to the football program if we can afford it. Personally I would much rather donate to the college I am in rather than the football program since I have been recieving a world class education, but I know that many will donate to athletics rather than edducation.
"Don't take offense-that last jibe was aimed at my own ego, not you-but I am adding you as friend."
I'm not offended. You have been added to my list as well. It's nice to run into someone on/. that doesn't want to just flame someone because they dissagree. Debate is the only way, and if that can't solve a difference of opinion it is always respectable to agree to disagree.
"I wonder how many riders were attached to the bill authorizing this database If you really wanted to find out, you could always do something radical like read the bill."
I didn't really have the time when I posted my earlier comment... but I just did.
I don't believe it, no riders, what a rare legislative act.
I would agree that any educational institution should first focus on education rather than athletics. The problem is that most donors (of large sums) specify to the $ where they want their money spent. If the institution doesn't spend it correctly they are open to a lawsuit from the donor.
Public money should help fund athletics to the point at which it helps the general student population. Athletics do teach competitive values which are valuable throughout both academic and professional careers. All of this PC garbage that students shouldn't ever loose isn't helpful to students in the long term because we all compete throughout our lives for everythiing. (It's much the the PC argument that teachers shouldn't use red ink anymore.) We compete for the top scores to get into the top universities. Then we compete to land the best jobs. Once we have jobs we compete for advancement. Then we compete with our neighbors for the best house/yard/car. Life is a competition and sports help drive that home at an early age. There are other avenues of competition that people mentioned earlier, like chess for example. Sports are one avenue that purely academic people often ignore because either they aren't interested in them or because they aren't good at them. (I was the second once I started getting older, but I still like them.) But a lack of understanding between the so called "jocks" and the "geeks" just fosters the stereotypes that people propogate in all aspects of life.
I don't think that tax dollars should be spent on million $ screens or gigantic stadiums. The issue at hand is that most large stadiums/arenas for schools are funded in large part by donors. The larger stadiums usually bring in more revenue which is spent on both other sports and if money is left over it goes to other causes(usually not good ones, that I will agree with as well). If the donors specify a stadium/arena/classroom the administrators are obligated to spend that money how the donors request. I would agree that this isn't always the case and if the admiistrators misappropriate the funds that is between the donors and the administrators and has a high likelyhood of ending up in a court battle. In the case you mentioned either the administrators worked it out in advance with the donor or the donor (or the donors estate) didn't follow up like they should have.
I know that I can put not DRM music on an iPod, I just don't see the point of owning one since I usually listen to XM. Since I pay for the service I just use it in my car. At home I can listen to it as well plus I have a good collection of legal recordings and some older CD's. If I flew more often I might consider an iPod but when I do fly I usually am too busy working to pay any attention to music or I just watch a movie (either on my laptop or the screen).
Most of my firends with iPods are dedicated users and would never give it up. I on the other hand just haven't found the need yet.
DRM and High prices on CD's are problematic, not the iPod or any other MP3 player that I know of (I didn't know some applied DRM to non-DRM music). If I purchase music I should be free to copy it to as many forms of media as I like as many times as I like. I have a horrible track record at maintaining backups and CD integrity, therefore I need the ability to copy it or I don't want it. I am actually supprised that I have been able to keep my DVD's in good shape but I don't put them in my car where I have to drive, swap cd's, etc. I don't feel that I should have to pay $18 for a decent CD. I do buy the occasional box set because they usually give me a good collection for a reasonable price relative to individual CD's (especially when a decent one goes on sale).
My real point is that the RIAA business model is failing due to a shift in consumer habits, not the piracy of music. It wan't much harder to share music back in the days of tapes (look at international markets back then, anything was available on the black market for cheap). The RIAA is upset because they can actually see their music being stolen in front of their eyes and the consumer has had it with their monopoly. I applaud apple for their iTunes store and the fact that they were able to come to an agreement with the RIAA. I only dislike the current model of $1 per song. An artist is entitled to compensation for their work, I just don't think that the labels should get most of the profit when they don't even know how to market effectively, are horrible a spotting talent, and just want to control prices. The artists should be the first to rebel with this age if Internet distribution and put together some cooperative recording studios to work from. There are plent of quality artists out there that the labels ignore. When I have baught CD's from local bands I usually get CD's they produced, the quality is great, and the prices are more like $10 then $20. Everyone wins except the major labels which have no inherant right to make a profit, they should earn their keep before asking anyone to pay them.
I have personally never owned an iPod and don't care to because I will not spend $1 for a song that sucks and limits my ability to own it and do as I wish with it. Maybe they didn't back their music up or whatever, I just took their word that they lost their music. But you have accused me of being a thief when I actually have only legal MP3s without DRM.
You are the type of individual that claims to be for freedom of speech, yet when it comes down to it you really mean that you can say what you want but if someone else doesn't agree with you that rule no longer applies. People like you are too quick to criticize what you are incapable of understanding.
I have commented in another post I prefer to attend concerts and the bands I enjoy allow their listeners to share their music. Think of the Greatful Dead and Phish, the bands like them that I listen to don't care about the RIAA or charging outrageous rates for their music. In fact a number of them have been bypassing TicketMaster for years because they think the monopoly charging a premium is BS for their listeners. Try a Jam band, they are the only bands worth listening to and they already embraced the culture of their music being shared well before the days of the Internet. They realize that a live performance can make them more money in the long run and sell other merchandise like the traditional tie-dyed tee shirt.
Come to think of it I think you are correct. I haven't bought a CD in years but I go to plenty of concerts. Most of the bands who concerts I do attend allow people to record their music and share it until they release or plan to release that particular concert. I listen to the Jam bands, which thrive on concerts and merchandise rather than inflated CD prices to make their money. I have bought their CD's in the past, but I would much rather go to a concert than have a CD. The memories are much better. I never really thought about the fact that I do spend my money on culture rather than a CD that gets extremely boring after I have listened to it a few times. That is a good point.
What about satellite radio? Since I got XM I never listen to the CD's I own since I get to hear different music all of the time without commercials? Did they factor that into their useless study?
Slashdot Mirror
That is a different type of tax, property tax. I think they are looking at this as a capital gains tax.
If they tax virtual currencies then we should be able to deduct all of our expenditures on video games, computers, game consols, Internet connections, TV, Stereo, game controller, and any other equipment/services that we use to play the games. After all, we are using them in our own personal businesses in order to generate virtual money.
Fireboy1919,
I don't know what you are talking about, almost everyone in Florida has an irrigation system and uses it for 6 months a year. During the dry season the grass will dry up and die without irrigation. I don't think people should use grass in Florida, it isn't native and hogs valuable groundwater reserves. The recent increase in sinkhole formation in Florida is correlated with the decline in the water table, particularly in Central Florida. Sinkholes are a natural occurrence but they haven't happened nearly as often historically as recently. Very few people there use native plants to fill their yards and I really think everyone should.
I agree, contacts are the number 1 way to land a job. However, I disagree with your thought on 2 pages or less on length. If the resume is for academia I would recommend whatever length it takes to list the skills and responsibilities you have. For almost any other job a one-page resume is the best. From my experiences evaluating potential employees, anything over 1 page goes to the bottom of the pile and only gets looked at if the one-page resumes are not good enough/extensive enough to find a good interview pool. If I have received a flood of resumes the two+ pagers get thrown in a folder to be thrown away.
The number one rule of resume writing is to highlight what you have done in your past (particularly your recent past) that will translate into benefits for the potential employer. Stay away from words like responsible and use action words such as implemented.
Personally I only list the last three-four jobs, my degrees, awards/accomplishments that I feel are worth listing and applicable to the situation. Awards and accomplishments have a limited life span and shouldn't really be used for more than about 5-10 years. Previous experience is a bit trickier, I have several versions of my resume that I keep around with different experiences. As a returning grad student my work experience changes depending on which job I am looking to land. For example I am not positive about the field I wish to go into, either consulting or project management. For the consulting resume I use previous experiences that highlight my ability to work with the customer, and my ability to perform a wide variety of technical as well as business related tasks. For the project management resume I highlight previous management experiences in an IT role, project management skills/experience, change management experience, and my technical expertise in an IT environment. I use the same jobs and titles, just different experiences depending on the role I am looking for.
How miss the days of DOS when technical people actually knew what they were doing. Heck, I miss text based games that actually made you think.
It's the alcohol obviously. I'm still drunk from last night. Anyone want to go get a drink?
"I'm not an airfoil expert, but it seems to me a well-designed modern windmill should have a minimal noise level - no more, and probably much less, than a tree of the same size."
Actually most of the noise appears to come from the turbine itself, not the airfoils. At high speeds you can hear the electricity arcing and it can make a defining noise. A more efficient turbine would probably help, but her technology is relatively old. I don't think her turbine was really designed for such high wind speeds but it was about all that was commercially available at the time. Inside her house it isn't too much of a problem because it is extremely well insulated (to handle the extreme temperatures she experiences in the winter of -40F or more). To improve efficiency her house is primarily constructed from insulating blocks with a very high insulation rating (similar to styrofoam but much stronger, I can't remember the name of the material) and has a very open floor plan so that 1 large wood stove and a small second one are able to heat the entire 3 bedroom house.
"WRT batteries, interesting new fuel cell technologies are appearing lately, using many different 'fuels' - ammonia, for example. I wonder if some of these might be workable for large scale home-built static systems like this?"
Battery technology is definitely improving and the use of toxic chemicals is going down with the improvements so it isn't such a big issue in the future. The problem with current storage techniques is the expense, I am not positive about the $ amount invested in batteries but I know that she has spent more on batteries than on the wind turbine and solar panels. She was definitely an early adopter and had 1 solar bank and 1 turbine at least 8 years ago. She recently finished her house and added a better battery bank and a second solar array to all but eliminate her generator usage.
"If your aunt has enough acreage, she might even consider a methane or alcohol digester - a biomass fermentation processor. She could pile a couple of acres' worth of grass and leaves in and get enough fuel to heat and cook with for a year."
She does have the acreage to grow enough biomass to have a digester, but with the small amount of gas she uses it doesn't make economic sense to invest in the digester. It may also be difficult to maintain and make usable in the cold winters she experiences since any liquid will be frozen for long periods without digging well into the side of the mountain which is very expensive. Also the growing conditions aren't very good being on the side of a mountain.
In my opinion, all new homes built in sensitive and remote areas should be built using her model. It is pretty amazing to be almost completely self sufficient this day in age. The only real source of energy she needs is gas for her car... if the weather wasn't so extreme I would recommend that she get a diesel car and convert it to run on used oil, although restaurants are also few and far between where she is.
I have an Aunt in Montana that has had one of these types of setups for years. She also lives in an area where none of her neighbors even want power lines so if she wanted them she would have to pay for about 10-12 miles of installation. She also has a solar bank, all wired to batteries. All heat comes from wood she gets from dead trees on her own property. I only see two problems with her setup. First the windmill can get extreemly loud, especially with the kind of wind speeds she experiences (often reaching 80 mph with gusts well over 100 mph). Secondly the batteries are expensive and have to be replaced frequently. All of those toxic chemicals floating around isn't good although they can be recycled. I still think she is much better off, she is immune to oil/coal price increases and can be totaly self sufficient. The only enery source she actually buys is propane to run her gas powered fridge and occasional use of her generator when her batteries are being serviced. I am actually quite impressed with her setup.
When you buy into a homeowners/condo association you don't typically own the land, it is communal. You own the building itself and have waived certain rights buy purchasing it. Read a set of documents and it is all clear. Think about a condo, what piece of land is yours vs. the communities. Homeowner associations tyically have the same rules. All land is shared and you have the obligation to maintain certain outside apperances. Do what you want on the inside, but you have agreed to follow the association rule by purchasing the home. It is all clear and legal, if you don't like it just leave or don't buy, no one is forcing you to buy/stay. Not allowing associations would actually infringe upon your rights more. There are usually many benifits associated with associations. They usually get good deals on landscaping, everything external is maintained for you, your property value is typically higher, and you typcally get some added security. If in your mind the benifits outweigh the costs you have your right to not be a part of it, but don't take away the rights of those who have decided they think the benifits outweigh the costs.
I used to work at a community management company and I hated dealing with the fights between homeowners, but the problem really isn't the power of the associations, it is that people move into them without looking at the documents. I would not buy a home in an association unless it was a vacation home. Realtors are actually the biggest problem because the often mislead buyers about what they are getting into. If you don't want to deal with an associations rules then don't buy in, it's that simple.
"I don't disagree that reading is important to good writing; however, I'd dispute that it is more important."
I would agree to some extent with your point, but without reading well-written material one has nothing to base what is effective and what is not. It is kind of like the chicken and the egg, you can't have one without the other. Reading well-written material is the basis for taking the next step. Obviously little practice will produce poor results, but I am sure that while in grad school I have improved my writing even more than in undergrad and actually write relatively little. In B-school we are forced to write short essays (most are from 1-3 pages), but we read thousands of pages of Harvard Case Studies, which tend to be well written. We are also expected to read the WSJ and Business Week. My writing has improved more by reading those than my own practice, although I am sure that practicing reinforces what I learn by reading.
Our educational system (particularly high-school and most undergraduate college programs)emphasize the technical aspects of writing rather than a balance between technical and effective. Being able to articulate a point is critical to advancement outside of school yet that skill is almost completely ignored. Some classes claim to teach that skill yet my experience has always been that the technical side is what is graded.
The Gordon Rule also applies to college. As someone who started college with no sense of direction, tried a few community college courses, then actually returned to school with motivation I have mixed feelings on the rule. I ended up fulfilling the Gordon Rule two times over (if I remember it was 6 courses with about 6,000 words each)
I do feel that practice makes perfect and the more times an instructor/grader points out mistakes you should learn to not make them again. I still have problems with some things such as comma usage, but my writing is much better and my grammar is far superior as a result. I had always scored high in math and poor in English before my undergraduate studies, upon graduation and taking the GMAT my scores were reversed.
The biggest problem with the Gordon Rule is that so many courses don't transfer from University to University. I had to double the requirement in order to finally graduate as a result of differing courses offered at different Universities.
The other problem with the Gordon Rule is that reading is probably just as, if not more, critical in learning to write effectively. One must learn to write properly by reading well-written material. Textbooks are poor examples of effective writing, and most Gordon Rule classes emphasize textbooks and journals as the sources to draw upon in preparing an essay. These sources are full of boring academic material that puts anyone to sleep (not that they aren't important, they are just poor examples of preparing an effective communication). Some of the best sources for good writing examples are classical literature and major credible media sources such as the WSJ (stay off the political slants, most major media sources have good editors that help make sure that the writing is in good form).
I worked for a company in this boat and although I enjoyed the work, they pay was dismal, employee turnover was high, and eventually after my departure the shop closed its doors. The problem with this environment is that employees know that their skills are valuable once they have been in the field for a while. Pay at my company ranged from $10-$25/hour based on the arrangements. I actually went from a flat rate to commission to a combinataion and back through all of the cycles again. flat pay plus commission probably worked best for all parties because at that point if I didn't have billable time I didn't work very much. If I was busy I banked. The biggest problem we had was that we did our own billing and I saw that my time was billed for anywhere from $65-$150/hour depending on the type of work and the time it was done. Even if you don't see what your time is billed at it is relatively easy to get a good estimate and most employees will figure this out quickly.
The only way to keep both the employee and employer happy for a prolonged period of time is if you can pay a commission and keep the employee busy 30+ hours a week. The large degree of fluctionations in our business is part of what led to my departure, I knew I was worth more like $30-40/hour at the time and my pay was closer to $20. A prolonged slump will kill morale for commission based employees and kills the owner for flat rate employees.
These shops are best suited as a training ground for new talent with a relatively small empoyee base. Larger companies of this sort can typically pay more because of efficiencies of scale and will likely take the more talented employees from smaller firms. Internal organizations are another major competitor and actually offered several of the people from my old shop jobs which they took. I personally left for a combination of pay, personal conflict with the owner, and a desire to run a business unit that acted like a business rather than a tech shop with little to no growth potential.
The use of riders is one of the worst institutions that the government has ever allowed. It is much worse than Internet gambling. I propose that the legislature tacks two bills onto the next defense appropriations bill... each act of legislation should pertain to one issue... and for every bill that is passed one has to be thrown out (with the exception of budget appropriations which have to be recurring and essentially override the previous appropriations bills).
The tactic of using riders is just like buying off a player in an athletic event in order to influence the outcome of a game.
"Myth #8: The idea is the most important part of my business plan."
The idea is really such a smal component. Engineers and Ph.D's tend to have a problem with this in particular. They always want the perfect product. The important part is finding the point of the marginal value curve that meets the market, then finding a way to exploit that market and excluding the competition from taking your market space. Not that the idea is the easy part, bu when compared to the rest of a business plan it is a very small thing. Millions of people have great ideas, turning them into a product that meets the end customers needs/wants is the real challenge.
Microsoft thrives on crushing the competition, hence they are always dealing with competition. Even if competition is scarce in the spaces they operate in, having no competition usually means a lack of a potential market.
..... I'm not saying they are easy to find one but there are a few lucrative market niches that have been left completely unexploited and the funny part is that most of them are so bloody obvious that most people manage to overlook them."
"Two words: iPod and iTunes
Both of those markets already existed. Apple was the only company that decided that having the most user-friendly interface was the most important idea. The Rio was out years before the iPod, it just had a difficult to use interface. MP3's being sold was also an existing idea, actually working out a deal with the music industry was the key to their success.
Asking reporters to do their job "correctly" is like asking a 2 year old to do calculus. Reporters go for headlines rather than accuracy.
"You mak a strong, reasonable argument. Am I mistaken that you mentioned you went to a private school?"
/. that doesn't want to just flame someone because they dissagree. Debate is the only way, and if that can't solve a difference of opinion it is always respectable to agree to disagree.
Yes, I did attend a private high school for the last few years.. I also went to public schools and have spent a long time in public universities. It took me 10 years to get around to finishing my undergrad (take a couple of classes, take a year or two of, repeat the process until one day I woke up and said I need to get that piece of paper.) Now I am in grad school and work for the University. My college is very particular about using the money in the way it was intended, although we are a business school and are relatively different from the rest of the university.
"But as a side note (in your favor), I've often wondered what makes sports so popular with the public"
That is probably the question to be answered. I don't really understand why either although I am a huge football fan. I am actually willing to trave 12 hours one way to make a football game at my undergrad university. I can't explain it. I do't really get into any other sport, I'll watch a little basketball, or the World Series but i am not much of a follower of those sports. I am not at the fanatical level of some of my friends that know all of the players and stats, but I am still a big football fan (Go Noles!!!).
"I'm Ooogh, mighty hunter and slayer of rivals!" instincts/mentality?...
That is probably the root of it, or it is just our competitive nature that helped humans evolve to be the top living organism on the planet (don't flame me over this just because humans do tons of idiodic things like war and polution, and yes according to Douglas Adams we are #3). I could also be the way many of us were raised, playing pee-wee football, little league, etc. Heck, when I was in high school I had a friend that would compete with me in algebra (who was faster, who go the higher grade, who could sleep more in class). I think it all comes from the same inner force and don't think that anyone can really explain it. A psychologist could probably become world renowned if he/she could figure this one out.
On a side note, one public university that I can speak about personally is FSU and their use of funds from sports. They have build one of the nices stadiums in the country, but use no money from academics to improve it. Actually the stadium houses their world renowned film school, and most of the administrative offices. This is they way that the two should work together, and it is horrible that it doesn't work like that more often. Here at my grad school all of the athletic buildings are single use, although they did use them to recruit us B-school students. (They took us up to the skybox, put a spotlight on the seats that we could get which were great 1-3 row on the 30 yard line, and fed us a world class meal.) I think they use these tactics as a dual purpose role, they attract students by showing them the skybox which if we are successfull we will be able to buy seats in, then they also show us that we should donate to the football program if we can afford it. Personally I would much rather donate to the college I am in rather than the football program since I have been recieving a world class education, but I know that many will donate to athletics rather than edducation.
"Don't take offense-that last jibe was aimed at my own ego, not you-but I am adding you as friend."
I'm not offended. You have been added to my list as well. It's nice to run into someone on
"I wonder how many riders were attached to the bill authorizing this database
If you really wanted to find out, you could always do something radical like read the bill."
I didn't really have the time when I posted my earlier comment... but I just did.
I don't believe it, no riders, what a rare legislative act.
I would agree that any educational institution should first focus on education rather than athletics. The problem is that most donors (of large sums) specify to the $ where they want their money spent. If the institution doesn't spend it correctly they are open to a lawsuit from the donor.
Public money should help fund athletics to the point at which it helps the general student population. Athletics do teach competitive values which are valuable throughout both academic and professional careers. All of this PC garbage that students shouldn't ever loose isn't helpful to students in the long term because we all compete throughout our lives for everythiing. (It's much the the PC argument that teachers shouldn't use red ink anymore.) We compete for the top scores to get into the top universities. Then we compete to land the best jobs. Once we have jobs we compete for advancement. Then we compete with our neighbors for the best house/yard/car. Life is a competition and sports help drive that home at an early age. There are other avenues of competition that people mentioned earlier, like chess for example. Sports are one avenue that purely academic people often ignore because either they aren't interested in them or because they aren't good at them. (I was the second once I started getting older, but I still like them.) But a lack of understanding between the so called "jocks" and the "geeks" just fosters the stereotypes that people propogate in all aspects of life.
I don't think that tax dollars should be spent on million $ screens or gigantic stadiums. The issue at hand is that most large stadiums/arenas for schools are funded in large part by donors. The larger stadiums usually bring in more revenue which is spent on both other sports and if money is left over it goes to other causes(usually not good ones, that I will agree with as well). If the donors specify a stadium/arena/classroom the administrators are obligated to spend that money how the donors request. I would agree that this isn't always the case and if the admiistrators misappropriate the funds that is between the donors and the administrators and has a high likelyhood of ending up in a court battle. In the case you mentioned either the administrators worked it out in advance with the donor or the donor (or the donors estate) didn't follow up like they should have.
You forgot to mention 8 tracks, I'm sure the decline of the 8 track was due to internet file sharing.
I know that I can put not DRM music on an iPod, I just don't see the point of owning one since I usually listen to XM. Since I pay for the service I just use it in my car. At home I can listen to it as well plus I have a good collection of legal recordings and some older CD's. If I flew more often I might consider an iPod but when I do fly I usually am too busy working to pay any attention to music or I just watch a movie (either on my laptop or the screen).
Most of my firends with iPods are dedicated users and would never give it up. I on the other hand just haven't found the need yet.
DRM and High prices on CD's are problematic, not the iPod or any other MP3 player that I know of (I didn't know some applied DRM to non-DRM music). If I purchase music I should be free to copy it to as many forms of media as I like as many times as I like. I have a horrible track record at maintaining backups and CD integrity, therefore I need the ability to copy it or I don't want it. I am actually supprised that I have been able to keep my DVD's in good shape but I don't put them in my car where I have to drive, swap cd's, etc. I don't feel that I should have to pay $18 for a decent CD. I do buy the occasional box set because they usually give me a good collection for a reasonable price relative to individual CD's (especially when a decent one goes on sale).
My real point is that the RIAA business model is failing due to a shift in consumer habits, not the piracy of music. It wan't much harder to share music back in the days of tapes (look at international markets back then, anything was available on the black market for cheap). The RIAA is upset because they can actually see their music being stolen in front of their eyes and the consumer has had it with their monopoly. I applaud apple for their iTunes store and the fact that they were able to come to an agreement with the RIAA. I only dislike the current model of $1 per song. An artist is entitled to compensation for their work, I just don't think that the labels should get most of the profit when they don't even know how to market effectively, are horrible a spotting talent, and just want to control prices. The artists should be the first to rebel with this age if Internet distribution and put together some cooperative recording studios to work from. There are plent of quality artists out there that the labels ignore. When I have baught CD's from local bands I usually get CD's they produced, the quality is great, and the prices are more like $10 then $20. Everyone wins except the major labels which have no inherant right to make a profit, they should earn their keep before asking anyone to pay them.
I guess, with the price of gas this past summer I probably shouldn't complain.
I have personally never owned an iPod and don't care to because I will not spend $1 for a song that sucks and limits my ability to own it and do as I wish with it. Maybe they didn't back their music up or whatever, I just took their word that they lost their music. But you have accused me of being a thief when I actually have only legal MP3s without DRM. You are the type of individual that claims to be for freedom of speech, yet when it comes down to it you really mean that you can say what you want but if someone else doesn't agree with you that rule no longer applies. People like you are too quick to criticize what you are incapable of understanding. I have commented in another post I prefer to attend concerts and the bands I enjoy allow their listeners to share their music. Think of the Greatful Dead and Phish, the bands like them that I listen to don't care about the RIAA or charging outrageous rates for their music. In fact a number of them have been bypassing TicketMaster for years because they think the monopoly charging a premium is BS for their listeners. Try a Jam band, they are the only bands worth listening to and they already embraced the culture of their music being shared well before the days of the Internet. They realize that a live performance can make them more money in the long run and sell other merchandise like the traditional tie-dyed tee shirt.
Come to think of it I think you are correct. I haven't bought a CD in years but I go to plenty of concerts. Most of the bands who concerts I do attend allow people to record their music and share it until they release or plan to release that particular concert. I listen to the Jam bands, which thrive on concerts and merchandise rather than inflated CD prices to make their money. I have bought their CD's in the past, but I would much rather go to a concert than have a CD. The memories are much better. I never really thought about the fact that I do spend my money on culture rather than a CD that gets extremely boring after I have listened to it a few times. That is a good point.
What about satellite radio? Since I got XM I never listen to the CD's I own since I get to hear different music all of the time without commercials? Did they factor that into their useless study?