OK, let's not be ridiculous. Everyone agrees that free speech is good. But it must have limits.
Let's do a crazy example just to demonstrate: Should NBC be able to air detailed plans to create a nuclear weapon? If you answer 'yes' to this, then I have to write you off as a crazy ideologue. If you answer 'no', then you have to admit that there are limits to freedom of expression and it is just a matter of finding a consensus position.
2 years ago my wife was involved in a clinical stage 3 melanoma drug trial using Yervoy (Ipilimumab). So far so good, but of course with cancer you never know if there is a single errant cell floating around the body like a time bomb. There were serious side effects - brain swelling that nearly killed her and had to be counteracted with mega doses of intravenous steroids that caused additional medical problems - but they seem more manageable than the current drug of choice for treatment of metastatic melanoma (interferon) which makes patients extremely sick for up to a year. (Note: all drugs used to treat melanoma are immunotherapy agents that flip biological switches that send the body's immune system into overdrive - then hopefully the body attacks cancer at a faster rate than it attacks non-threats and itself. It's different from chemo but I think the jury is out on which one is less fun to deal with. Cancer sucks all around.)
Anyway, the point of my post is that we are doing a good job developing new treatments for cancer, though I doubt they will ever be painless. I figured I would add my two cents since you mentioned Yervoy.
I'd bet it gets pretty close to meeting the demand of the community. Unfortunately, the typical American diet is heavy on staples (wheat, corn, potatoes, rice) & meats while being light on fresh vegetables (what this farm seeks to provide). You could probably supply 454 families with more artichokes than they could use with just an acre....
1) Lasers have a focal length. This is where all the light converges to a point and becomes powerful enough to cut steel in industrial applications or do damage in military applications. Go much beyond the focal length and the laser beam becomes practically useless.
2) The Earth has an atmosphere, not a vacuum. At any significant range, there will be energy losses.
If anything, a missed laser shot would cause far less collateral damage than conventional armaments. If you are 100 feet behind the target and take a hit, you *might* have to worry about a sunburn or some minor retinal damage (similar to looking at a welding torch or directly at the sun). Might.
Source: I worked at the world's largest producer of laser optics
When enough people own electric cars & solar panels, then the price of gas & grid electric will drop, which will disincentivize people from investing in new tech.
The basic idea is you make electronic flashcards based on the material you need to memorize. Then the program quizzes you. If you get a question wrong, you will see that question again in a few minutes. If you get it right, the program doesn't show it to you for a few days.
People use systems like this to memorize vast amounts of information b/c human memory periodically runs garbage collection on unused data. If you recall the desired info at the right intervals, you get around that problem and can shove all sorts of facts into your long term memory. I use it for studying languages, but it can apply to anything. The Jeopardy super champion used anki to memorize trivia in preparation for the show, so I think it should work nicely for college classes.
My wife was part of a stage 3 melanoma study for the drug Ipilimumab (brand name Yervoy), an immunotherapy drug that inhibits the signal mechanism used by the immune system to turn off an attack. So any metastatic cells floating around her body would not be able to masquerade as normal cells by flying the right protein flag. Unfortunately, halfway through the trial she had a major reaction that caused brain swelling, requiring her to be hospitalized twice. Fortunately, she survived the side effects and the oncologist believes she had enough of the juice to get most of the benefit. Without the drug, we were looking at 50% survival rate for 5 years. The study is still in progress, so no idea how Ipilimumab will improve the odds.
There is research out there claiming green tea, spices like tumeric, and just eating better can have dramatic results. I would like to see some serious research by respected oncologists into the efficacy of simple life changes like that, instead of study after study pushing big pharma's insanely expensive drugs (thankfully covered by the trial in our case) that cause side effects potentially more dangerous than the disease they are intended to treat.
I don't know if reprogramming T-Cells like in TFA is more or less dangerous than conventional immunotherapy. Cancer makes people desperate enough to take some pretty big treatment risks. I certainly appreciate the fact that oncologists are aggressive in their mission to save lives, but I wish we had more non-fringe research into potentially good treatments that were also cheap and safe.
8 is a little young for most kids to appreciate hard science fiction, so I would stick to the softer stuff. Here are a few softer stories I enjoyed at that age:
The Pern books by Anne McCaffrey The Zero Stone by Andre Norton Startide Rising by David Brin (I think I was 10 when I read this one, but the concept of dolphins piloting starships blew my mind...some sexual content, though)
You are 100% right, aztracker1. Copyright is no longer an incentive for artists to produce content. Bands make money off of concerts, the labels take all the money from music sales. I think we are eventually going to see a switch from centralized music production to distributed patronage. http://www.pledgemusic.com/ allows content creators to get interested people to pledge their support for an album. If (and only if) the goal is reached, credit cards are charged and the artist begins creating their album. When its done, everyone who pledged gets a copy of the album. If we can keep crap legislation from doing too much harm, the industry will adapt and the idea of copyright will go the way of the horse drawn carriage.
Well said, dgatwood. It's a shame our elected politicians are more willing to fund wars than take care of the poor and elderly.
Unfortunately, social security and medicare are headed for bankruptcy. Our politicians have promised things that can't be delivered to future retirees. An economist has a short power point on US Government Debt at this location: http://www.antolin-davies.com/conventionalwisdom/governmentdebt.pdf
The Congressional Budget Office has been using misleading accounting practices to justify partisan legislation. Surplus social security funds have gone to wars and bailouts. When social security can no longer meet current obligations with current income, the US will be in the same boat as Greece and Italy.
McGrew, believe it or not, I do know about the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. During the time they have existed, the areas under their purview have improved greatly in America. But assuming these agencies are the direct cause of the improvements is a logical fallacy (the fallacy of false cause).
These regulatory agencies came about because of popular opinion. The people cared about these issues enough to do something. Had regulatory agencies not been created, the courts would have created a solution. Common law systems are slow to react to changes, so it wouldn't have happened overnight. But the end result would have been companies self-regulating and more power resting with the people.
You claim that the existence of the EPA proves that courts were not sufficient to prevent pollution. I don't believe it. You accuse me of being illogical, but your arguments are based on emotion and construe temporal nearness as proof of causality. Society is constantly evolving. When enough people care about an issue, change will happen with or without heavy-handed Government intervention.
I'm sorry your grandfather was killed by his employer's negligence. The courts failed your grandmother if they didn't nail the company for having an unsafe workplace. But I don't believe their failure means that courts can't do the job. Look at the ACLU and its use of the court system to champion free speech. A non-profit organization could have done the work of OSHA just as effectively. Someone just needs to have a landmark case to set the precedent that employers are responsible for safety.
As a final note, I trust rich businessmen more than I trust Government bureaucrats. You think corporations are powerful? Only so long as their customers are satisfied. Henry Royce (co-founded of Rolls-Royce) built cars for the rich and died a man of modest means. Henry Ford built cars for the people and died a wealthy man. Free markets are democracy in action. You get to vote every time you buy something. Businessmen are rewarded or punished by the will of the people every day. What keeps bureaucrats in line? If their boss's boss's boss is appointed by someone who is elected by popular vote, what does that mean to them? I don't like that the people Congress delegated its power of regulation are immune to the consequences of their action. If you distrust businessmen (who are motivated by profits), then why do you trust bureaucrats (who are motivated by power)?
You are absolutely right. Government does exist to prevent the rights of its citizens. This doesn't mean it has to be big. Big Government serves the corporations more than the people because they have more money to buy votes. The more power Government has, the more incentive companies have to influence legislation. This is why SOPA is being pushed and probably will pass. It isn't for the people, it's for the corporations. And this is how it always plays out when you have big Government.
The courts are capable of preventing corporations from violating our rights (they just need to be sued for something a few times to learn their lesson). The courts aren't so good at preventing big brother from violating our rights. Think warrantless wiretaps, TSA agents strip searching children, and innocent people going through interrogations due to a case of mistaken identity.
There is no perfect solution. A little bit of Government is good. Too much Government is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
The Government does not protect people from rich corporations. Politicians trade their votes for favors from large companies. I work at a company that receives large earmarks from senators on a regular basis, so I am always surprised when people get up on a soapbox and preach how the government is the only thing preventing corporations from taking over everything.
Regulatory agencies serve the interests of those they regulate, not the general public. Did you know that hair stylists are licensed? They have to go to an approved "school" such as Philip Pelusi. And who lobbied for these regulations? Philip Pelusi. Wait a minute....
The reason people want limited government is because the institution is too easy to corrupt. Keep the Govt weak and people with money can't buy the votes they need. As for the environment, we don't need heavy regulation. All we need is a court system that recognizes property rights. If the plant down the street puts toxic waste into the environment, let everyone within a hundred miles sue the pants off of them. They will stop polluting.
Don't assume proponents of limited government are ignorant just because you disagree with their position. There are more tools to fix society's problems than just more regulation . . . when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Maximizing profit is what every business should be doing. In a competitive market, individual companies seeking profit maximization increases consumer power. The problem faced by consumers of media is copyright law - a Government regulation that originated with good intentions before being captured by the music and film industries. Capitalism looks nothing like these two industries. If you disagree with that statement, I suggest you read some of Milton Friedman's work (or watch his Donohue interview on YouTube if you just want a quick overview). The reason that copyright holders are not selling their product through as many channels as possible is that the opportunity cost is too high - every dollar spent providing a consumer with product is a dollar less than can spend lobbying for more regulations.
Visa & Mastercard have no risk whatsoever when you swipe your card. They process credit card transactions, but they do not provide the money. That comes from the bank or financial institute that provided your card (Chase / BofA / Capital One / etc).
Cards like Discover & American Express do have the risk that a cardholder won't pay their debt, but they get plenty of money from bad cardholders in terms of fees, penalties, and high interest rates.
Actually, the biggest risk to credit cads is lawsuits by vendors, cardholders, & lending institutions. That's why Visa had to do an IPO a few years back (symbol V).
Sometimes an oligopoly is the healthiest outcome for a market - for buyers as well as sellers. Telecoms, energy companies, and credit processors have major investments in infrastructure that let them offer the service they do. It isn't always possible to have thousands of companies competing to serve every market.
But that's OK, because Game Theory demonstrates that Oligopolies cannot collude and keep prices significantly higher than their true market value for any length of time. Basically, whenever prices are held artificially high, any company in the Oligopoly that "cheats" and lowers its prices will steal customers from its competitors.
The real problem with credit cards is not their market structure, but the fact that costs are not visible to the customer.
Just because speculation can distort the market at times doesn't mean it can't be a sound investment. Speculation is just as rampant in the real estate market as in the stock market, but that doesn't make owning a home a gamble.
The stock market is functioning exactly as it should. It is a *market* that brings together people who want to buy and sell ownership shares of public companies. That's it's entire purpose and stocks are trading just fine.
The reason the market exists in the first place is companies need a way to raise capital besides incurring debt. There is the implicit promise of dividends, even for companies like Dell that claim they will never declare one. Most investors also hope to make a return on their investment through capital gains, but this is not guaranteed.
Owning stock is not a game of hot potato - there is no arbitrary end point. It also is not a gamble. If you make bad investments, you might be holding a company's stock (e.g. GM) when it fails. But chances are pretty good that your average investment (especially if you use mutual funds) will be close to market returns.
Public sentiment is against stock ownership at the moment because overall market prices are down following a long period of over-valuation. Unfortunately, the bubble always has to burst. Just the way it is. Give it 5 years and everyone will be back on the wagon....
Networking is the best way to go. But you can get an interview based solely on a good resume / cover letter. But you have to really sell yourself. Make sure your resume is formatted good, has no typos, highlights the right things (internships, big school projects), and doesn't duplicate the same buzz-word bullshit that everyone else applying for the job is saying about themselves ("self-starter", "team-player", etc). Good luck.
Completely agree with you. The problem with insurance companies is that they distort the natural market for healthcare through collusion. If we eliminated health insurance completely, individual consumers would be much better off.
You are basing an awful lot off of the phenomenon of deja vu.
I once read a psychology article that gave a very simple explanation for deja vu. It involved an experience being directly stored into long term memory at the same time that it was being loaded into short term memory. And voila, when you compare your current experience to your memory, the two match exactly.
I am not opposed to the idea of time travel, but your particular brand of it seems based more on mysticism than scientific understanding.
While taxpayer funds are being used in the "bailout", this is not free money. There are a few strings attached related to executive compensation and raising dividend rates on common stock. And also, it is not free money.
The bailout is closer to being a loan than a gift. (Actually the bailout is the government purchases preferred stock at a specified price that pays a nice interest rate - 5% initially but this later raises to 9%.)
I personally disagree with Government intervention in the market, but the bailout has been misrepresented in the press. It is not free money and the taxpayers are not out 700 Billion dollars.
The "bounce back" dilemma does not exist. Military lasers do not use visible light. They use IR. IANAP (I am not a physicist), but I work for a company that produces industrial lasers. So trust me, the laser is not going to be reflected back at its source.
Actually, military lasers are almost always infrared CO2 lasers. There aren't a lot of materials that can significantly reflect high powered IR lasers. Even those materials (usually copper) require coatings to boost their reflectivity. CO2 lasers in industry are a lot less powerful and are typically used to cut steel.
So I wouldn't be too worried about some guy with a hand mirror if I was holding one of these things.
The culture of your company may be distorting your view of the field in general. My company encourages teamwork, highly values mentoring, frowns on reactive problem solving without doing a root cause analysis, and overlooks the large amount of socializing the development team mixes in with actual work. Out of a group of 20 we only have 3 females, but they are highly respected within the group, one of them being our senior-most senior developer (and self-appointed code police, able to strike fear into the hearts of all who deviate from best practices). Not that I have a perfect company. Turnover rates are pretty high in IT due to slightly below-average compensation and the fact that the director is an ass (not that we see him often).
From my experience, companies vary as much as people do. Why do you care if it's fair that your boss is trying to drum someone out of a job? He's probably an idiot who no one would want to work for. What's not fair is that you think you have to put up with their crap. Put your resume out today!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, let's not be ridiculous. Everyone agrees that free speech is good. But it must have limits.
Let's do a crazy example just to demonstrate: Should NBC be able to air detailed plans to create a nuclear weapon? If you answer 'yes' to this, then I have to write you off as a crazy ideologue. If you answer 'no', then you have to admit that there are limits to freedom of expression and it is just a matter of finding a consensus position.
2 years ago my wife was involved in a clinical stage 3 melanoma drug trial using Yervoy (Ipilimumab). So far so good, but of course with cancer you never know if there is a single errant cell floating around the body like a time bomb. There were serious side effects - brain swelling that nearly killed her and had to be counteracted with mega doses of intravenous steroids that caused additional medical problems - but they seem more manageable than the current drug of choice for treatment of metastatic melanoma (interferon) which makes patients extremely sick for up to a year. (Note: all drugs used to treat melanoma are immunotherapy agents that flip biological switches that send the body's immune system into overdrive - then hopefully the body attacks cancer at a faster rate than it attacks non-threats and itself. It's different from chemo but I think the jury is out on which one is less fun to deal with. Cancer sucks all around.)
Anyway, the point of my post is that we are doing a good job developing new treatments for cancer, though I doubt they will ever be painless. I figured I would add my two cents since you mentioned Yervoy.
I'd bet it gets pretty close to meeting the demand of the community. Unfortunately, the typical American diet is heavy on staples (wheat, corn, potatoes, rice) & meats while being light on fresh vegetables (what this farm seeks to provide). You could probably supply 454 families with more artichokes than they could use with just an acre....
This is not an issue at all for 2 reasons:
1) Lasers have a focal length. This is where all the light converges to a point and becomes powerful enough to cut steel in industrial applications or do damage in military applications. Go much beyond the focal length and the laser beam becomes practically useless.
2) The Earth has an atmosphere, not a vacuum. At any significant range, there will be energy losses.
If anything, a missed laser shot would cause far less collateral damage than conventional armaments. If you are 100 feet behind the target and take a hit, you *might* have to worry about a sunburn or some minor retinal damage (similar to looking at a welding torch or directly at the sun). Might.
Source: I worked at the world's largest producer of laser optics
When enough people own electric cars & solar panels, then the price of gas & grid electric will drop, which will disincentivize people from investing in new tech.
I recommend using anki: http://ankisrs.net/
The basic idea is you make electronic flashcards based on the material you need to memorize. Then the program quizzes you. If you get a question wrong, you will see that question again in a few minutes. If you get it right, the program doesn't show it to you for a few days.
People use systems like this to memorize vast amounts of information b/c human memory periodically runs garbage collection on unused data. If you recall the desired info at the right intervals, you get around that problem and can shove all sorts of facts into your long term memory. I use it for studying languages, but it can apply to anything. The Jeopardy super champion used anki to memorize trivia in preparation for the show, so I think it should work nicely for college classes.
My wife was part of a stage 3 melanoma study for the drug Ipilimumab (brand name Yervoy), an immunotherapy drug that inhibits the signal mechanism used by the immune system to turn off an attack. So any metastatic cells floating around her body would not be able to masquerade as normal cells by flying the right protein flag. Unfortunately, halfway through the trial she had a major reaction that caused brain swelling, requiring her to be hospitalized twice. Fortunately, she survived the side effects and the oncologist believes she had enough of the juice to get most of the benefit. Without the drug, we were looking at 50% survival rate for 5 years. The study is still in progress, so no idea how Ipilimumab will improve the odds.
There is research out there claiming green tea, spices like tumeric, and just eating better can have dramatic results. I would like to see some serious research by respected oncologists into the efficacy of simple life changes like that, instead of study after study pushing big pharma's insanely expensive drugs (thankfully covered by the trial in our case) that cause side effects potentially more dangerous than the disease they are intended to treat.
I don't know if reprogramming T-Cells like in TFA is more or less dangerous than conventional immunotherapy. Cancer makes people desperate enough to take some pretty big treatment risks. I certainly appreciate the fact that oncologists are aggressive in their mission to save lives, but I wish we had more non-fringe research into potentially good treatments that were also cheap and safe.
8 is a little young for most kids to appreciate hard science fiction, so I would stick to the softer stuff. Here are a few softer stories I enjoyed at that age:
The Pern books by Anne McCaffrey
The Zero Stone by Andre Norton
Startide Rising by David Brin (I think I was 10 when I read this one, but the concept of dolphins piloting starships blew my mind...some sexual content, though)
You are 100% right, aztracker1. Copyright is no longer an incentive for artists to produce content. Bands make money off of concerts, the labels take all the money from music sales. I think we are eventually going to see a switch from centralized music production to distributed patronage. http://www.pledgemusic.com/ allows content creators to get interested people to pledge their support for an album. If (and only if) the goal is reached, credit cards are charged and the artist begins creating their album. When its done, everyone who pledged gets a copy of the album. If we can keep crap legislation from doing too much harm, the industry will adapt and the idea of copyright will go the way of the horse drawn carriage.
Well said, dgatwood. It's a shame our elected politicians are more willing to fund wars than take care of the poor and elderly.
Unfortunately, social security and medicare are headed for bankruptcy. Our politicians have promised things that can't be delivered to future retirees. An economist has a short power point on US Government Debt at this location: http://www.antolin-davies.com/conventionalwisdom/governmentdebt.pdf
The Congressional Budget Office has been using misleading accounting practices to justify partisan legislation. Surplus social security funds have gone to wars and bailouts. When social security can no longer meet current obligations with current income, the US will be in the same boat as Greece and Italy.
McGrew, believe it or not, I do know about the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. During the time they have existed, the areas under their purview have improved greatly in America. But assuming these agencies are the direct cause of the improvements is a logical fallacy (the fallacy of false cause).
These regulatory agencies came about because of popular opinion. The people cared about these issues enough to do something. Had regulatory agencies not been created, the courts would have created a solution. Common law systems are slow to react to changes, so it wouldn't have happened overnight. But the end result would have been companies self-regulating and more power resting with the people.
You claim that the existence of the EPA proves that courts were not sufficient to prevent pollution. I don't believe it. You accuse me of being illogical, but your arguments are based on emotion and construe temporal nearness as proof of causality. Society is constantly evolving. When enough people care about an issue, change will happen with or without heavy-handed Government intervention.
I'm sorry your grandfather was killed by his employer's negligence. The courts failed your grandmother if they didn't nail the company for having an unsafe workplace. But I don't believe their failure means that courts can't do the job. Look at the ACLU and its use of the court system to champion free speech. A non-profit organization could have done the work of OSHA just as effectively. Someone just needs to have a landmark case to set the precedent that employers are responsible for safety.
As a final note, I trust rich businessmen more than I trust Government bureaucrats. You think corporations are powerful? Only so long as their customers are satisfied. Henry Royce (co-founded of Rolls-Royce) built cars for the rich and died a man of modest means. Henry Ford built cars for the people and died a wealthy man. Free markets are democracy in action. You get to vote every time you buy something. Businessmen are rewarded or punished by the will of the people every day. What keeps bureaucrats in line? If their boss's boss's boss is appointed by someone who is elected by popular vote, what does that mean to them? I don't like that the people Congress delegated its power of regulation are immune to the consequences of their action. If you distrust businessmen (who are motivated by profits), then why do you trust bureaucrats (who are motivated by power)?
You are absolutely right. Government does exist to prevent the rights of its citizens. This doesn't mean it has to be big. Big Government serves the corporations more than the people because they have more money to buy votes. The more power Government has, the more incentive companies have to influence legislation. This is why SOPA is being pushed and probably will pass. It isn't for the people, it's for the corporations. And this is how it always plays out when you have big Government.
The courts are capable of preventing corporations from violating our rights (they just need to be sued for something a few times to learn their lesson). The courts aren't so good at preventing big brother from violating our rights. Think warrantless wiretaps, TSA agents strip searching children, and innocent people going through interrogations due to a case of mistaken identity.
There is no perfect solution. A little bit of Government is good. Too much Government is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
The Government does not protect people from rich corporations. Politicians trade their votes for favors from large companies. I work at a company that receives large earmarks from senators on a regular basis, so I am always surprised when people get up on a soapbox and preach how the government is the only thing preventing corporations from taking over everything.
Regulatory agencies serve the interests of those they regulate, not the general public. Did you know that hair stylists are licensed? They have to go to an approved "school" such as Philip Pelusi. And who lobbied for these regulations? Philip Pelusi. Wait a minute....
The reason people want limited government is because the institution is too easy to corrupt. Keep the Govt weak and people with money can't buy the votes they need. As for the environment, we don't need heavy regulation. All we need is a court system that recognizes property rights. If the plant down the street puts toxic waste into the environment, let everyone within a hundred miles sue the pants off of them. They will stop polluting.
Don't assume proponents of limited government are ignorant just because you disagree with their position. There are more tools to fix society's problems than just more regulation . . . when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Maximizing profit is what every business should be doing. In a competitive market, individual companies seeking profit maximization increases consumer power. The problem faced by consumers of media is copyright law - a Government regulation that originated with good intentions before being captured by the music and film industries. Capitalism looks nothing like these two industries. If you disagree with that statement, I suggest you read some of Milton Friedman's work (or watch his Donohue interview on YouTube if you just want a quick overview). The reason that copyright holders are not selling their product through as many channels as possible is that the opportunity cost is too high - every dollar spent providing a consumer with product is a dollar less than can spend lobbying for more regulations.
Visa & Mastercard have no risk whatsoever when you swipe your card. They process credit card transactions, but they do not provide the money. That comes from the bank or financial institute that provided your card (Chase / BofA / Capital One / etc).
Cards like Discover & American Express do have the risk that a cardholder won't pay their debt, but they get plenty of money from bad cardholders in terms of fees, penalties, and high interest rates.
Actually, the biggest risk to credit cads is lawsuits by vendors, cardholders, & lending institutions. That's why Visa had to do an IPO a few years back (symbol V).
Sometimes an oligopoly is the healthiest outcome for a market - for buyers as well as sellers. Telecoms, energy companies, and credit processors have major investments in infrastructure that let them offer the service they do. It isn't always possible to have thousands of companies competing to serve every market.
But that's OK, because Game Theory demonstrates that Oligopolies cannot collude and keep prices significantly higher than their true market value for any length of time. Basically, whenever prices are held artificially high, any company in the Oligopoly that "cheats" and lowers its prices will steal customers from its competitors.
The real problem with credit cards is not their market structure, but the fact that costs are not visible to the customer.
Just because speculation can distort the market at times doesn't mean it can't be a sound investment. Speculation is just as rampant in the real estate market as in the stock market, but that doesn't make owning a home a gamble.
The stock market is functioning exactly as it should. It is a *market* that brings together people who want to buy and sell ownership shares of public companies. That's it's entire purpose and stocks are trading just fine. The reason the market exists in the first place is companies need a way to raise capital besides incurring debt. There is the implicit promise of dividends, even for companies like Dell that claim they will never declare one. Most investors also hope to make a return on their investment through capital gains, but this is not guaranteed. Owning stock is not a game of hot potato - there is no arbitrary end point. It also is not a gamble. If you make bad investments, you might be holding a company's stock (e.g. GM) when it fails. But chances are pretty good that your average investment (especially if you use mutual funds) will be close to market returns. Public sentiment is against stock ownership at the moment because overall market prices are down following a long period of over-valuation. Unfortunately, the bubble always has to burst. Just the way it is. Give it 5 years and everyone will be back on the wagon....
Networking is the best way to go. But you can get an interview based solely on a good resume / cover letter. But you have to really sell yourself. Make sure your resume is formatted good, has no typos, highlights the right things (internships, big school projects), and doesn't duplicate the same buzz-word bullshit that everyone else applying for the job is saying about themselves ("self-starter", "team-player", etc). Good luck.
Completely agree with you. The problem with insurance companies is that they distort the natural market for healthcare through collusion. If we eliminated health insurance completely, individual consumers would be much better off.
You are basing an awful lot off of the phenomenon of deja vu. I once read a psychology article that gave a very simple explanation for deja vu. It involved an experience being directly stored into long term memory at the same time that it was being loaded into short term memory. And voila, when you compare your current experience to your memory, the two match exactly. I am not opposed to the idea of time travel, but your particular brand of it seems based more on mysticism than scientific understanding.
While taxpayer funds are being used in the "bailout", this is not free money. There are a few strings attached related to executive compensation and raising dividend rates on common stock. And also, it is not free money. The bailout is closer to being a loan than a gift. (Actually the bailout is the government purchases preferred stock at a specified price that pays a nice interest rate - 5% initially but this later raises to 9%.) I personally disagree with Government intervention in the market, but the bailout has been misrepresented in the press. It is not free money and the taxpayers are not out 700 Billion dollars.
The "bounce back" dilemma does not exist. Military lasers do not use visible light. They use IR. IANAP (I am not a physicist), but I work for a company that produces industrial lasers. So trust me, the laser is not going to be reflected back at its source.
Actually, military lasers are almost always infrared CO2 lasers. There aren't a lot of materials that can significantly reflect high powered IR lasers. Even those materials (usually copper) require coatings to boost their reflectivity. CO2 lasers in industry are a lot less powerful and are typically used to cut steel. So I wouldn't be too worried about some guy with a hand mirror if I was holding one of these things.
The culture of your company may be distorting your view of the field in general. My company encourages teamwork, highly values mentoring, frowns on reactive problem solving without doing a root cause analysis, and overlooks the large amount of socializing the development team mixes in with actual work. Out of a group of 20 we only have 3 females, but they are highly respected within the group, one of them being our senior-most senior developer (and self-appointed code police, able to strike fear into the hearts of all who deviate from best practices). Not that I have a perfect company. Turnover rates are pretty high in IT due to slightly below-average compensation and the fact that the director is an ass (not that we see him often). From my experience, companies vary as much as people do. Why do you care if it's fair that your boss is trying to drum someone out of a job? He's probably an idiot who no one would want to work for. What's not fair is that you think you have to put up with their crap. Put your resume out today!