Nothing's worse than hearing a line like this and knowing that it's only a relatively few years down the line before the wrong type of management takes over,
What's the big deal? People are important, companies are just a way to organize them. If bad management takes over Pixar, the creative people will just move elsewhere.
As long as it's possible to move somewhere else where you can be creative, and as long as you really are productive (so somebody will finance you), who cares if this or that company fails?
I think part of the problem with Enterprise is that it is a step backwards, not forwards for the Trek universe. Trek needs TNNG (The Next Next Generation).
The Trek universe has too much technology. Between holodecks, replicators, and emergency holograms, the technology just makes everything too easy.
The only way for Trek to be interesting in the "future" is to take a lot of technology away.
I, for one, look forward to seeing a series about the reinvention of the warp drive after two hundred years of only slower than light travel. I especially look forward to seeing how a few Ferengi got stuck on the Klingon home world, and their descendants are now running it.
Another reason that a higher paying job gives you more free time is that it gives you money to pay other people to do jobs that would otherwise take your time. Whether it's ordering pizza, getting a plumber to fix your pipes, or buying a car with a lower mileage that is less likely to need garage time, money can save you time.
I'm going to assume both anonymous cowards are the same person.
But you also say you have a lot of free time. In my experience the high-paying jobs are the ones that expect you to work hard 50+ hours a week.
Those are the majority, but there are exceptions. If you are sufficiently good, they'll pay you for your expertise rather than your hard work - but you have to be able to solve problems that not many other people can solve.
Of course, getting to that point takes a lot of hard work.
not only are your posts inconsistent, 33 of your total of 40 posts are from the last six months. what's up, ori? why did you suddenly become so loquacious?
Because I forgot my password, and only a few month ago bothered to reset it.
Sure, I might make slightly less money than you, but I figure I'll be a slightly more whole person than someone who just wants to go to trade school.
You'd be a much more whole person than somebody who just went to trade school and didn't continue his or her education. That's guaranteed.
However, education is not a sprint. It's a marathon. I think it was Lincoln who said that if he has six hours to chop a tree, he'd spend the first four sharpening the axe. Learning a trade so you can have the sort of job that leaves you with enough free time to study whatever you wish for the rest of your life is a form of axe sharpening.
Do we really have to work that hard? Is there really not enough to go around?
It's not really the high cost of living, it's the cost of living high. You could do like my parents in law, live in the middle of nowhere in a used mobile home, buy most things used, and develop the skills to fix whatever breaks. It's a low income life style, but it is still a higher standard of living than what most people on the planet have. It's also a lot more than most of our grandparents had.
We (my wife and I) don't do it. We like going out to eat instead of cooking our own food and paying other people do deal with things like plumbing and appliance problems. But the only reason we can afford it, and have a full time mother for the baby, is that I have a good profession. If we were both admin type employees, we'd be struggling.
Anybody who tells you getting a profession is not important, or that is hurts your integrity, is either lying or blissfully unaware of the realities of trying to maintain a US level of luxury while raising kids.
I'm rather troubled by that attitude here on Slashdot - there seem to be many many people who view a degree as pointless unless it fast tracks you to a job. There seem to be many people who view High School and University as solely vocational training, and judge the success or failure of those institutions solely by how successfuly they tain you to do a job.
When you're eighteen, if you are at all serious about living your own life, you need vocational training. Learning of learning's sake is great, but you won't have the spare time to learn in the rest of your life if you're struggling to make ends meet.
Universities used to be learning for learning sake when they were mostly populated by the children of the rich and rich, who did not expect to have to work for a living.
That does not make sense; is not the job of the NSA to brake security of any network in order to easedrop on the conversations? It is a spy agency, not a security agency.
The assumption is that a spy agency will have a good idea what kind of holes would allow other spy agencies to break in. Not a bad idea, IMAO.
But it seems a bit too much for the average user. I mean it feels a bit like preaching to the choir. The guide will be most popular among people that already have the ability and desire to move to linux, not necesarily the average joe who is dipping his feet in the water to explore.
I don't think it's meant for Joe user. Instead, it is meant for Jack CTO and Jane SysAdmin who will be the ones moving Joe user from Windows to Linux.
Implying Governments are INHERENTLY bureaucratic is a myth, conversly, arguing that a PRIVATE firm (of any notable size) isnt just as complex is silly.
First, very few private firms are the size of even a state government.
Second, businesses are motivated to be more efficient. If you're a CEO and you slash beaurocracy effectively (that is, cut expenses without cutting value), you lower expenses and raise profits. That's supposed to result in your $tock option$ being more valuable.
If you are a politician and you cut beaurocracy, you save tax payer money. You also generate bad publicity. All of those former government workers that are now out of a job probably won't like you. They know enough to highlight the negative effects of the cut, even if the positive effects outweigh it. So improving efficiency might actually be bad for your re-election bid.
Or that SCO offered some companies a $1 (or one pound) license so they'll be able to make the claim that some companies are jumping on the SCO bandwagon. SCO is all about PR these days.
Paying $1 for this nonsense is a reasonable business decision.
AFAIK, there is no international law about spying. This means that there is no rule that says that a government cannot spy on people in other countries. They don't need a search warrant or a wiretap warrant.
This means that there is no law stopping the US government from spying on Europeans, or for that matter European governments from spying on people in the US. A government can even use this to bypass its own privacy regulations by having a friendly government spy on its citizens and getting that information.
If you want to stop wiretapping, use encryption. Do not assume that a legal barrier is going to stop a secretive organization with little oversight into its activities.
I for one am glad not to worry about our old soviet overlords. Seriously, in the eighties it looked like the USSR was almost as strong as the US. Isn't it great that that dictatorship spent itself into bankruptcy?
I'm guesing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable".
Last time I checked, Google was a private company. It's very easy to fling accusations of censorship in a free society, but don't you think you need something more than "a private company wouldn't provide me the information"?
Seriously, I like the idea of our soldiers being out of harm's way and remote controlling expendable robots. I also think that people who aren't fighting for their lives are likely to be more careful to avoid shooting bystanders. When your brain is soaked with Andrenalin and fatigue, your abilities go down, even with the best training.
Enact stringent privacy rules? For the US? On Bahamas? Offshore? With the global jurisdiction and universal scope of US law, I presume? How would you want the "federal officials" to do that? Maybe US should "liberate" Bahamas?
I assume that this means to stop the data propagation at the point it is collected (in the US), rather than try to control it after the genie is out of the bottle.
I, for one, welcome our new information collecting overlords.
This is an extremely popular TV show, which now runs three times a week (the Las Vegas original, Miami, and the brand new New York series). Each show focuses on the scientific gathering of evidence to catch criminals. This includes explanations, with heavy computer graphics.
It's not that the public doesn't care about science. It's that the public wants Drama. Drama with science works great, it's the dry science only stuff that fails.
all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit
It's the difference between junk mail and spam. Filing a law suit costs more time and money than putting a few details into a boiler-plate letter. Also, you can get in trouble for filing frivolous law suites, in a way you can't for sending silly letters.
I'd say this is a victory. Not the victory in the war, but certainly one avenue of harrassment that's been closed to them.
We do this because a large part of India is still where the west was centuries ago. Shortage of clean water, primitive communication, small scale inefficient agriculture, etc.
The Indian people are making enormous progress in a comparable short ammount of time.
I agree, and I'm also very impressed with that. But the fact that they are working hard to get close to where we are now means they also identify their current situation as backwards in many ways.
In many ways the Indian attitude towards education is superior to our own.
Poor doesn't mean stupid. The richer the country, the more the people think they can afford to be stupid. That's one of the reasons that previously rich countries tend to lose their status.
Not Neccessarily. Recently, in SD and perhaps other states, banks have started to push local legislation to allow them to create credit-issuing subsidaries which, upon declaring bankruptcy, can dissolve with no liability to the bank they belong to. They can also lose money without the loss showing up on the parent bank's balance sheet.
The question is, who gives those subsidiaries the money they loan out, which got stolen. A credit-issuing subsidiary is only as important as the amount of money put in it.
If the *credit card companies* were the ones who had to suffer the costs of fraud, rather than shifting it to the companies or to the taxpayer, then they would be a HELL of a lot more motivated to add stronger authentication to the system.
Except they are the ones who pay for it. They get to deduct a business loss from their taxes, because those losses reduce their earnings.
Self propelled rockets that fall down with a big boom. The US doesn't need them (we have enough nukes). But you can sell them to third world countries as cheap WMDs.
Do you want the government to be able to find out you paid $20 to paladin-press.com for that bomb making book, donated $180 to the EFF, and then spent $120 in a house of ill repute in Las Vegas? If so, then keeping financial records confidential is not an issue for you.
But if you want your private affairs private then you want your financial affairs private as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing's worse than hearing a line like this and knowing that it's only a relatively few years down the line before the wrong type of management takes over,
What's the big deal? People are important, companies are just a way to organize them. If bad management takes over Pixar, the creative people will just move elsewhere.
As long as it's possible to move somewhere else where you can be creative, and as long as you really are productive (so somebody will finance you), who cares if this or that company fails?
Hi,
I think part of the problem with Enterprise is that it is a step backwards, not forwards for the Trek universe. Trek needs TNNG (The Next Next Generation).
The Trek universe has too much technology. Between holodecks, replicators, and emergency holograms, the technology just makes everything too easy.
The only way for Trek to be interesting in the "future" is to take a lot of technology away.
I, for one, look forward to seeing a series about the reinvention of the warp drive after two hundred years of only slower than light travel. I especially look forward to seeing how a few Ferengi got stuck on the Klingon home world, and their descendants are now running it.
Bye,
Ori
Another reason that a higher paying job gives you more free time is that it gives you money to pay other people to do jobs that would otherwise take your time. Whether it's ordering pizza, getting a plumber to fix your pipes, or buying a car with a lower mileage that is less likely to need garage time, money can save you time.
Hi,
I'm going to assume both anonymous cowards are the same person.
But you also say you have a lot of free time. In my experience the high-paying jobs are the ones that expect you to work hard 50+ hours a week.
Those are the majority, but there are exceptions. If you are sufficiently good, they'll pay you for your expertise rather than your hard work - but you have to be able to solve problems that not many other people can solve.
Of course, getting to that point takes a lot of hard work.
not only are your posts inconsistent, 33 of your total of 40 posts are from the last six months. what's up, ori? why did you suddenly become so loquacious?
Because I forgot my password, and only a few month ago bothered to reset it.
Bye,
ORi
Hi,
Sure, I might make slightly less money than you, but I figure I'll be a slightly more whole person than someone who just wants to go to trade school.
You'd be a much more whole person than somebody who just went to trade school and didn't continue his or her education. That's guaranteed.
However, education is not a sprint. It's a marathon. I think it was Lincoln who said that if he has six hours to chop a tree, he'd spend the first four sharpening the axe. Learning a trade so you can have the sort of job that leaves you with enough free time to study whatever you wish for the rest of your life is a form of axe sharpening.
Bye,
Ori
Hi,
Do we really have to work that hard? Is there really not enough to go around?
It's not really the high cost of living, it's the cost of living high. You could do like my parents in law, live in the middle of nowhere in a used mobile home, buy most things used, and develop the skills to fix whatever breaks. It's a low income life style, but it is still a higher standard of living than what most people on the planet have. It's also a lot more than most of our grandparents had.
We (my wife and I) don't do it. We like going out to eat instead of cooking our own food and paying other people do deal with things like plumbing and appliance problems. But the only reason we can afford it, and have a full time mother for the baby, is that I have a good profession. If we were both admin type employees, we'd be struggling.
Anybody who tells you getting a profession is not important, or that is hurts your integrity, is either lying or blissfully unaware of the realities of trying to maintain a US level of luxury while raising kids.
Bye,
Ori
Hi,
I'm rather troubled by that attitude here on Slashdot - there seem to be many many people who view a degree as pointless unless it fast tracks you to a job. There seem to be many people who view High School and University as solely vocational training, and judge the success or failure of those institutions solely by how successfuly they tain you to do a job.
When you're eighteen, if you are at all serious about living your own life, you need vocational training. Learning of learning's sake is great, but you won't have the spare time to learn in the rest of your life if you're struggling to make ends meet.
Universities used to be learning for learning sake when they were mostly populated by the children of the rich and rich, who did not expect to have to work for a living.
Bye,
Ori
That does not make sense; is not the job of the NSA to brake security of any network in order to easedrop on the conversations? It is a spy agency, not a security agency.
The assumption is that a spy agency will have a good idea what kind of holes would allow other spy agencies to break in. Not a bad idea, IMAO.
Hi,
But it seems a bit too much for the average user. I mean it feels a bit like preaching to the choir. The guide will be most popular among people that already have the ability and desire to move to linux, not necesarily the average joe who is dipping his feet in the water to explore.
I don't think it's meant for Joe user. Instead, it is meant for Jack CTO and Jane SysAdmin who will be the ones moving Joe user from Windows to Linux.
Implying Governments are INHERENTLY bureaucratic is a myth, conversly, arguing that a PRIVATE firm (of any notable size) isnt just as complex is silly.
First, very few private firms are the size of even a state government.
Second, businesses are motivated to be more efficient. If you're a CEO and you slash beaurocracy effectively (that is, cut expenses without cutting value), you lower expenses and raise profits. That's supposed to result in your $tock option$ being more valuable.
If you are a politician and you cut beaurocracy, you save tax payer money. You also generate bad publicity. All of those former government workers that are now out of a job probably won't like you. They know enough to highlight the negative effects of the cut, even if the positive effects outweigh it. So improving efficiency might actually be bad for your re-election bid.
Or that SCO offered some companies a $1 (or one pound) license so they'll be able to make the claim that some companies are jumping on the SCO bandwagon. SCO is all about PR these days.
Paying $1 for this nonsense is a reasonable business decision.
AFAIK, there is no international law about spying. This means that there is no rule that says that a government cannot spy on people in other countries. They don't need a search warrant or a wiretap warrant.
This means that there is no law stopping the US government from spying on Europeans, or for that matter European governments from spying on people in the US. A government can even use this to bypass its own privacy regulations by having a friendly government spy on its citizens and getting that information.
If you want to stop wiretapping, use encryption. Do not assume that a legal barrier is going to stop a secretive organization with little oversight into its activities.
I for one am glad not to worry about our old soviet overlords. Seriously, in the eighties it looked like the USSR was almost as strong as the US. Isn't it great that that dictatorship spent itself into bankruptcy?
I'm guesing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable".
Last time I checked, Google was a private company. It's very easy to fling accusations of censorship in a free society, but don't you think you need something more than "a private company wouldn't provide me the information"?
Bye
Seriously, I like the idea of our soldiers being out of harm's way and remote controlling expendable robots. I also think that people who aren't fighting for their lives are likely to be more careful to avoid shooting bystanders. When your brain is soaked with Andrenalin and fatigue, your abilities go down, even with the best training.
Actually, it's not that bad.
345/49.95 = 6.9 (= 590% inflation)
power(6.9,1/50) = 1.04 (= 4% inflation).
4% inflation is not such a big deal.
Enact stringent privacy rules? For the US? On Bahamas? Offshore? With the global jurisdiction and universal scope of US law, I presume? How would you want the "federal officials" to do that? Maybe US should "liberate" Bahamas?
I assume that this means to stop the data propagation at the point it is collected (in the US), rather than try to control it after the genie is out of the bottle.
I, for one, welcome our new information collecting overlords.
This is an extremely popular TV show, which now runs three times a week (the Las Vegas original, Miami, and the brand new New York series). Each show focuses on the scientific gathering of evidence to catch criminals. This includes explanations, with heavy computer graphics.
It's not that the public doesn't care about science. It's that the public wants Drama. Drama with science works great, it's the dry science only stuff that fails.
Bye,
Ori
all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit
It's the difference between junk mail and spam. Filing a law suit costs more time and money than putting a few details into a boiler-plate letter. Also, you can get in trouble for filing frivolous law suites, in a way you can't for sending silly letters.
I'd say this is a victory. Not the victory in the war, but certainly one avenue of harrassment that's been closed to them.
So, what are you doing today? Working hard or taking it easy?
/. .
Working, but not particularly hard. For one thing, I have time to read/write
In its centuries long existance, it must have reached its final goal (whatever it was) by now.
Not final, but preferable to what it was in the past.
The situation is still better than what was prevaliling in US after 50 years of independence - fighting for slaves.
I'm not arguing that point. When I say India is backwards, I compare it to the current US. I agree that India is better than the US was in 1826.
Hi,
Who are we to call part of India "backward"?
We do this because a large part of India is still where the west was centuries ago. Shortage of clean water, primitive communication, small scale inefficient agriculture, etc.
The Indian people are making enormous progress in a comparable short ammount of time.
I agree, and I'm also very impressed with that. But the fact that they are working hard to get close to where we are now means they also identify their current situation as backwards in many ways.
In many ways the Indian attitude towards education is superior to our own.
Poor doesn't mean stupid. The richer the country, the more the people think they can afford to be stupid. That's one of the reasons that previously rich countries tend to lose their status.
Not Neccessarily. Recently, in SD and perhaps other states, banks have started to push local legislation to allow them to create credit-issuing subsidaries which, upon declaring bankruptcy, can dissolve with no liability to the bank they belong to. They can also lose money without the loss showing up on the parent bank's balance sheet.
The question is, who gives those subsidiaries the money they loan out, which got stolen. A credit-issuing subsidiary is only as important as the amount of money put in it.
If the *credit card companies* were the ones who had to suffer the costs of fraud, rather than shifting it to the companies or to the taxpayer, then they would be a HELL of a lot more motivated to add stronger authentication to the system.
Except they are the ones who pay for it. They get to deduct a business loss from their taxes, because those losses reduce their earnings.
Self propelled rockets that fall down with a big boom. The US doesn't need them (we have enough nukes). But you can sell them to third world countries as cheap WMDs.
Sounds like a defense of CORPORATIONS rights,
Do you want the government to be able to find out you paid $20 to paladin-press.com for that bomb making book, donated $180 to the EFF, and then spent $120 in a house of ill repute in Las Vegas? If so, then keeping financial records confidential is not an issue for you.
But if you want your private affairs private then you want your financial affairs private as well.