Wow! With so many police listening into so many conversations, the crime rate must be nearly zero. How can people do anything wrong if they can be listened to at will!
Except, um, if the people listening in aren't totally honest themselves. Who listening in on the prosecutors and cops? How long until blackmail starts?
The money and oil keep flowing as usual. And the public is buying it.:(
And we're about to blow up a few tens of thousands of people to get Free oil for the oil companies, as well. They'll make trillions of dollars in "renegociated" oil leases with our new puppet dictatorship in Iraq. And I read that France, along with some other Western nations, are being told that if they don't back this "war", they are getting their Iraqi oil lease prices "renegociated" by us as punishment.
As Mark Twain said:
"The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
The "California Fruitcakes" (Oh, Rush! you neologistic god!) are drowning in a oxide poison tank. The IC engine, over a hundred years old and horribly inefficient, needs to go the way of bustles and button-up corsets. The "fruitcakes" actually breathe in the gunk that most car drivers blow over into other states.
There is no reason, industrially, why lithium or nickel-metal batteries should cost what they do, save that the owners of the IP want them to cost that much. And as another poster in this thread said, these new battery techs are bough up by petrocorporations as soon as they show any promise.
The "free" market, isn't. The taxpayers ponied up hundreds of millions of dollars to car companies to develop non-IC powerplants. The car companies develpoed the Insight, an great vehicle, and several hybrid vehicles, which work great too. The battery tech has stagnated, tho, for no apparent reason. GM nuked the only working electric car, to the horror of its engineers.
Point is, they didn't make an alternative to their IC cars because, well, it's suicide for them! Electric cars don't have a tenth of the parts a present-day car has. They don't break down. Theat means the entire service bay portion of the automakers' bottom line is almost GONE. It means the cars don't fall apart as fast, since the stress on the engine is nil, so that means that they can't nearly as many new cars.
Endgame: they don't want their money machine to die. They won't give us electric cars, even if we give them free tax money to develop the tech. The "free market", as Adam Smith forsaw, is it's own worst enemy. The triopolists simply have agreed amongst themselves never to make the things, and they won't. It's not in their interests.
If we want an electric car that works, let the feds give cash to non-industry affiliated universities, with the stipulation that the IP generated becomes open-source to those that paid for it, the taxpayers. Then people can hack together their own powerplants.
Hm. After a while, why not just live in the SUV? Just make it a tad larger, and you have a whole new lifestyle option -- luxury minimotorhomes,
During an economic depression, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to live in a nice SUV. Not to mention a lot easier to relocate to a new city when a job opportunity opens up.
"Hm. You want me to relocate to Coral Cables by next Monday? I'm in Chicago. Let's see, let me pay up the docking fee, then I'll get going by noon. I'm sure I'll be happy working for you, Mr. Highlyoverpaid Slaveowner".
Sigh. Not very much more. It's Cheney's (Sec of Defense during Gulf war) obsession, he and select others of Bush 2's boys that are retreads of Bush 1's.
Saddam is not a threat to anyone. He's not threaten-ing, he cannot threat-en. Use of the terrible Weapons of Mass Distraction will result in his immediate incineration, along with ancient Mesopotamia.
What he is is an embarrassment to the Bush dynasty. The Bushes and Cheney will not rest until they feel their dicks are longer than Saddam's.
What he has is oil, and we want it.
What he is, is a huge distraction from the fact that Al Queda *got away*. Bin Laden *got away*.
Bush wants a big win. Cheney et al are trying to create an emotional link between Saddam and Al Queda where no logical one exists. A gullible, and extremely uninformed and snookered, public has swallowed the unfact of Saddam's menace, and want to blow up a few tens of thousands of people.
What the U.S. is collectively doing is trying to feel *safe and in control* again. We are blowing up Afganistan, tho the attackers are primarily from Saudi Arabia, and this makes us feel good and effective, tho the objectives (shut down Al Qeda, kill/capture Bin Laden) have not, and will not be met, 'cause Afghanistan doesn't HAVE Bin Laden or Al Queda.
The Admin, as in so many other things, is trying to set new precedent. In this case, that they can invade and neutralize a country because they *believe* it *may* be dangerous. They are expressing the belief that they, and they alone, can decide the guilt or innocence of a nation, and unilaterally exterminate it, based on their *assertion* that the enemy must be up to something.
They have set a precedent similar to this by declaring U.S. citizens "uncitizens" at the whim of a man in the Defense Department. They are trying to establish precendent that the President can execute war at his whime as well. They are establishing precedent that they are immune to the judicial system. To the Constitution itself.
Because we are at war with terrorism.
Excuse me, but how does one win a war on a common noun? What we have is the precendent of a President declaring that he can declare war unilaterally, suspend the Constitition, jail in secret anyone he likes for the rest of their lives, and lie if he wants to to the press. The precendent that questioning of such policies by the press is tantamount to treason, so watch your mouth -- we're *watching* you.
The President alone shall decide when the war is won. When it all stops and goes back to normal.
But it can't, by definition. How do you defeat "terror"? How do you defeat...
Being afraid.
What we are, is afraid, and we hate it, and will do anything we can to stop being afraid, including following an administration who has grabbed illegal powers in defiance of the Constitution.
Now we will blow up Iraq, mumbling something about Weapons of Mass Destruction. I guarantee ya, there will be no reporters allowed on the ground in Iraq post-annihilation to see if there were any WMD factories. The admin has no interest in whether the claims can be proven or disproven.
This is insane, and the idea is rejected by every nation on Earth, as it should be. It declares the power of Rome over the nations of the world; it declares Empire.
This could be a good way for smaller chipmakers to break into the market. If they refuse to quit selling non-DRM processors, they'll guarentee themselves plenty of geek customers.
I guarantee that by the time such chipmakers (Cyrix, AMD, Brand X) decide to produce non-DRM chips in defiance of Intel/MS/Hollywood's monopoly, the act of producing or selling such chips will be deemed illegal, in small, politically-digestible steps.
I also warrant that the penalties for ignoring the law will outstrip those for murder.
Stockpiles, kids. When the last generation of non-DRM CPUs are made, buy as many as you can, and put them in a safe place. Ditto mobos and components, 'cause data drives will be DRMed to only work with approved "protected" CPUs.
I'm not saying that some company won't be manufacturing Freedom Chips. I'm saying that the consequences for owning such devices will be so dire that the market will shrivel and the rogue companies will find themselves bankrupt.
And other nations will not be a safe harbor for manufaturing US-banned equipment for long, either. We're (the U.S.) are the world's only economic and military empire now, and business interests will dictate changes in international and extranational laws at their whim. The majority of the legal shafting has already been accomplished, prepatory to the arrival of DRM-mandates in the near future.
I remember that plot point now: didn't they tap into the Kennedy Space Center mainframes to get enough processing power to navigate? (it WAS the 70's..)
I seem to recall NASA twigged onto the linkup, but did not terminate the dialup because they were rooting for Salvage 1 to make it... as any real space engineer would.
First it was a rather cool TV movie. Andy Griffith played the junkyard owner/D.D. Harriman type who wanted to go to the moon in a ship he would build.
The ship was mostly a cement mixer with welded and bolted on gear. The "fuel" was extremely volatile high explosive with a specific impulse much higher than H/O2 rockets, so it didn't require much in the way of tank space.
Griffith's character clamed that the equipment left behind on the moon was claimable as salvage (hence the name). He wanted to land on the moon, claim and retrieve choice bits, and return to Earth to sell the stuff to finance the whole deal.
The network ordered up an ongoing TV series based on the movie, but without the moon involved there was really nothing for the ship/enormous bomb to do.
Launching from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, not the U.S.
Which still raises the question, why do they need permission? Courtesy to NASA, or did the U.S. demand the company request permission? If the second, I think a immensely bad precedent has been set.
There wouldn't be any strip mines. The moon doesn't appear to have layers of strata that require removal of the surface to access.
The surface *is* the material we want: metallic oxides, rich in yummy aluminum, titanium, iron and O2.
To mine it, you merely scoop it up into a truck.
As for marring the beauty of the surface, the moon has none to speak of. It looks like Verdun after WW I.
I'm all for preserving natural beauty on earth, and mining the moon for material would be great help in reducing mining on earth. As far as I'm concerned, the moon is a lovely resource.
You could not see the activities on the moon from Earth anyway, not without a major scope. You'd never notice a thing.
There's nothing ALIVE on the moon, so we should use it.
I think life appearing on a dead world would spruce it up a bit.
"Trailblazer is expected to launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan within the next nine to 12 months. Trailblazer will also carry a time capsule containing messages and personal items that will remain on the moon where the craft crashes. "
If you want to establish imperial right to the moon, just establish the precedent of demanding control over such activities. Companies such as Transorbital are not rich; they cave quickly. But now precedent is established: the U.S. claims the right to regulate U.S. companies' activities on the moon, even if launched from another country.
Editorially I add that the precedents established in cases such as Noriega and various internet sites overseas has given the U.S. expanded *expected* control of activies in other countries. We're essentially claiming, bit-by-bit, hegemony over the planet by any means necessary. It's not a vile conspiracy, merely the Logic of Empire.
"You tried to use my comments as a bully pulpit to rail against everything from immigration to social programs, and that was inappropriate."
I agree with all your other points. I, basically, didn't write enough in response, so that my point would have been clearer. I tend to write-and-run, because this sort of thing takes a lot of time.
Not against immigration: merely realistic that the H1B relaxation of about two years back flooded the tech job market and closed up options for employment. This is a fact.
The admin: I did rail against them, but I don't think it was inappropriate or "political" -- the tax cut and the new borrowing to finance 6.5 trillion bucks emptied out the SocSec funds with prejudice. Stick a fork in it: it's over. So now we collectively have to plan on working past 70.
As for the purpose of arguing, I was not arguing the subject in the original article was correct, or you incorrect either. I was pointing out that, with a boomlet of yunguns, a flood of H1B's permitted, and age discrimination more rampant than in the '60's (another era of no-over 30's need apply), a person over thirty seems like a kid pressed up agaist a candy store window, with no hope of ever going inside.
Someone over 30 shouldn't try to be an Olympic runner, but going into law enforcement or engineering shouldn't be a problem. A 35-yo can learn calc a lot faster than a 18 yo: not as distracted by the opposite sex, at the height of their mental faculties, fr more motivated (because, grimly, and realisitically, it's their last chance!). But, realistically, as you say, there is almost no chance for employment for a 35-40 year old new BS in CS.. some, but slim and vanishing.
As you say, I am being realistic, but this is not a good situation for either you or anyone else. You're aging too, and you may need to change careers two or three times in your life.
In Chicago last year, there was a such a critial shortage of new police recruits that they upped the age limit to... 40. They finally got their recruits, and I hope it works out well. I suspect that the older men and women will do better than their younger counterparts, since they are more motivated to succeed.
"But don't wait until you're almost 40, already burnt out, and THEN decide you want this type of career "
What is someone over 30 and who wants to start a new career supposed to do, commit suicide?
Not everyone is 18-25, son. This forum's collective opinion to the contrary, there are over-25 yo's who can still contribute without wearing Depends.
We are likely to be the generation that will live to 100, hell, 120 or 150 years of age. If only 18-25 yo's, just fresh out of college, are the only people worth considering for law enforcement, or comp sci, or IT, or electronics, hell, anything other than McJobs, what the hell is the majority of the world's poulation supposed to do? Read Slashdot for the rest of their lies and weep that they are no longer 18 and fresh out of a good high school in the burbs?
This is a serious point. The population is aging, regardless of the Baby Boomlet kids of the 80's jamming up the employment pipes right now. The amount of ageism I encounter in real life and on fora such as these is also found in Human Resources departments I encounter daily.
Something's going to give here. Even with the H1B visa worker flood, there is a shortage of good talent everywhere -- good talent, not mediocre and hired 'cause they're young and fit the profile at HR. Ther's going to be 80 million or so aging Americans with no access to good jobs because of the prejudice and school snobbery of the Boomlet. With Social Sec killed by the current admin's "borrowing", where the hell is anyone supposed to make a living?
If you've never seen the high quality prints (for the sake of argument) how could you perceive a difference between what we see and what you see? Do you compare the quality to your domestic releases?
I go to a lot of second-run or third run cheapie theaters here in the U.S., and I never noticed the nasty image quality until someone pointed it out to me.
He wasn't comparing anyone to Hitler. He was making the point that people can spin reality into any number of lies. The "Hitler wasn't so bad" argument has been made many, many times in popular books and acedemia.
Hitler was bad, the DMCA is bad. They are not the same, but the impulse to justify either is laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
'twas 70 million plus, actually.
But it bought us Bush II ! I'm sure the House managers thought it other people's money well spent.
Wow! With so many police listening into so many conversations, the crime rate must be nearly zero. How can people do anything wrong if they can be listened to at will!
Except, um, if the people listening in aren't totally honest themselves. Who listening in on the prosecutors and cops? How long until blackmail starts?
The money and oil keep flowing as usual. And the public is buying it. :(
And we're about to blow up a few tens of thousands of people to get Free oil for the oil companies, as well. They'll make trillions of dollars in "renegociated" oil leases with our new puppet dictatorship in Iraq. And I read that France, along with some other Western nations, are being told that if they don't back this "war", they are getting their Iraqi oil lease prices "renegociated" by us as punishment.
As Mark Twain said:
"The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit
will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of
the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be
a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and
dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will
shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason
against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and
be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them,
and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the
platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their
secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but
do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take
up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who
ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open.
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the
nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he
enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger"
The "California Fruitcakes" (Oh, Rush! you neologistic god!) are drowning in a oxide poison tank. The IC engine, over a hundred years old and horribly inefficient, needs to go the way of bustles and button-up corsets. The "fruitcakes" actually breathe in the gunk that most car drivers blow over into other states.
There is no reason, industrially, why lithium or nickel-metal batteries should cost what they do, save that the owners of the IP want them to cost that much. And as another poster in this thread said, these new battery techs are bough up by petrocorporations as soon as they show any promise.
The "free" market, isn't. The taxpayers ponied up hundreds of millions of dollars to car companies to develop non-IC powerplants. The car companies develpoed the Insight, an great vehicle, and several hybrid vehicles, which work great too. The battery tech has stagnated, tho, for no apparent reason. GM nuked the only working electric car, to the horror of its engineers.
Point is, they didn't make an alternative to their IC cars because, well, it's suicide for them! Electric cars don't have a tenth of the parts a present-day car has. They don't break down. Theat means the entire service bay portion of the automakers' bottom line is almost GONE. It means the cars don't fall apart as fast, since the stress on the engine is nil, so that means that they can't nearly as many new cars.
Endgame: they don't want their money machine to die. They won't give us electric cars, even if we give them free tax money to develop the tech. The "free market", as Adam Smith forsaw, is it's own worst enemy. The triopolists simply have agreed amongst themselves never to make the things, and they won't. It's not in their interests.
If we want an electric car that works, let the feds give cash to non-industry affiliated universities, with the stipulation that the IP generated becomes open-source to those that paid for it, the taxpayers. Then people can hack together their own powerplants.
Hm. After a while, why not just live in the SUV? Just make it a tad larger, and you have a whole new lifestyle option -- luxury minimotorhomes,
During an economic depression, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to live in a nice SUV. Not to mention a lot easier to relocate to a new city when a job opportunity opens up.
"Hm. You want me to relocate to Coral Cables by next Monday? I'm in Chicago. Let's see, let me pay up the docking fee, then I'll get going by noon. I'm sure I'll be happy working for you, Mr. Highlyoverpaid Slaveowner".
The fuel cell runs on gasoline. Hydrogen availability is not an issue with this type of fuel cell.
Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet. Republican urban myth, assiduously propogated.
Ack! There's video! It was on Good Morning America! Someone get it on Gnutella stat!
Sigh. Not very much more. It's Cheney's (Sec of Defense during Gulf war) obsession, he and select others of Bush 2's boys that are retreads of Bush 1's.
Saddam is not a threat to anyone. He's not threaten-ing, he cannot threat-en. Use of the terrible Weapons of Mass Distraction will result in his immediate incineration, along with ancient Mesopotamia.
What he is is an embarrassment to the Bush dynasty. The Bushes and Cheney will not rest until they feel their dicks are longer than Saddam's.
What he has is oil, and we want it.
What he is, is a huge distraction from the fact that Al Queda *got away*. Bin Laden *got away*.
Bush wants a big win. Cheney et al are trying to create an emotional link between Saddam and Al Queda where no logical one exists. A gullible, and extremely uninformed and snookered, public has swallowed the unfact of Saddam's menace, and want to blow up a few tens of thousands of people.
What the U.S. is collectively doing is trying to feel *safe and in control* again. We are blowing up Afganistan, tho the attackers are primarily from Saudi Arabia, and this makes us feel good and effective, tho the objectives (shut down Al Qeda, kill/capture Bin Laden) have not, and will not be met, 'cause Afghanistan doesn't HAVE Bin Laden or Al Queda.
The Admin, as in so many other things, is trying to set new precedent. In this case, that they can invade and neutralize a country because they *believe* it *may* be dangerous. They are expressing the belief that they, and they alone, can decide the guilt or innocence of a nation, and unilaterally exterminate it, based on their *assertion* that the enemy must be up to something.
They have set a precedent similar to this by declaring U.S. citizens "uncitizens" at the whim of a man in the Defense Department. They are trying to establish precendent that the President can execute war at his whime as well. They are establishing precedent that they are immune to the judicial system. To the Constitution itself.
Because we are at war with terrorism.
Excuse me, but how does one win a war on a common noun? What we have is the precendent of a President declaring that he can declare war unilaterally, suspend the Constitition, jail in secret anyone he likes for the rest of their lives, and lie if he wants to to the press. The precendent that questioning of such policies by the press is tantamount to treason, so watch your mouth -- we're *watching* you.
The President alone shall decide when the war is won. When it all stops and goes back to normal.
But it can't, by definition. How do you defeat "terror"? How do you defeat...
Being afraid.
What we are, is afraid, and we hate it, and will do anything we can to stop being afraid, including following an administration who has grabbed illegal powers in defiance of the Constitution.
Now we will blow up Iraq, mumbling something about Weapons of Mass Destruction. I guarantee ya, there will be no reporters allowed on the ground in Iraq post-annihilation to see if there were any WMD factories. The admin has no interest in whether the claims can be proven or disproven.
This is insane, and the idea is rejected by every nation on Earth, as it should be. It declares the power of Rome over the nations of the world; it declares Empire.
I guarantee that by the time such chipmakers (Cyrix, AMD, Brand X) decide to produce non-DRM chips in defiance of Intel/MS/Hollywood's monopoly, the act of producing or selling such chips will be deemed illegal, in small, politically-digestible steps.
I also warrant that the penalties for ignoring the law will outstrip those for murder.
Stockpiles, kids. When the last generation of non-DRM CPUs are made, buy as many as you can, and put them in a safe place. Ditto mobos and components, 'cause data drives will be DRMed to only work with approved "protected" CPUs.
I'm not saying that some company won't be manufacturing Freedom Chips. I'm saying that the consequences for owning such devices will be so dire that the market will shrivel and the rogue companies will find themselves bankrupt.
And other nations will not be a safe harbor for manufaturing US-banned equipment for long, either. We're (the U.S.) are the world's only economic and military empire now, and business interests will dictate changes in international and extranational laws at their whim. The majority of the legal shafting has already been accomplished, prepatory to the arrival of DRM-mandates in the near future.
This is why I'm switching to an art career.
I remember that plot point now: didn't they tap into the Kennedy Space Center mainframes to get enough processing power to navigate? (it WAS the 70's..)
I seem to recall NASA twigged onto the linkup, but did not terminate the dialup because they were rooting for Salvage 1 to make it... as any real space engineer would.
Thanks -- makes much more sense.
It was called "Salvage 1".
First it was a rather cool TV movie. Andy Griffith played the junkyard owner/D.D. Harriman type who wanted to go to the moon in a ship he would build.
The ship was mostly a cement mixer with welded and bolted on gear. The "fuel" was extremely volatile high explosive with a specific impulse much higher than H/O2 rockets, so it didn't require much in the way of tank space.
Griffith's character clamed that the equipment left behind on the moon was claimable as salvage (hence the name). He wanted to land on the moon, claim and retrieve choice bits, and return to Earth to sell the stuff to finance the whole deal.
The network ordered up an ongoing TV series based on the movie, but without the moon involved there was really nothing for the ship/enormous bomb to do.
Frightening you time: over half the people in the U.S. believe that UFO's are real, and come from other planets.
That survey closed down all of my hopes that the U.S. as a whole is capable of making rational decisions.
Launching from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, not the U.S.
Which still raises the question, why do they need permission? Courtesy to NASA, or did the U.S. demand the company request permission? If the second, I think a immensely bad precedent has been set.
There wouldn't be any strip mines. The moon doesn't appear to have layers of strata that require removal of the surface to access.
The surface *is* the material we want: metallic oxides, rich in yummy aluminum, titanium, iron and O2.
To mine it, you merely scoop it up into a truck.
As for marring the beauty of the surface, the moon has none to speak of. It looks like Verdun after WW I.
I'm all for preserving natural beauty on earth, and mining the moon for material would be great help in reducing mining on earth. As far as I'm concerned, the moon is a lovely resource.
You could not see the activities on the moon from Earth anyway, not without a major scope. You'd never notice a thing.
There's nothing ALIVE on the moon, so we should use it.
I think life appearing on a dead world would spruce it up a bit.
from the article:
"Trailblazer is expected to launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan within the next nine to 12 months. Trailblazer will also carry a time capsule containing messages and personal items that will remain on the moon where the craft crashes.
"
If you want to establish imperial right to the moon, just establish the precedent of demanding control over such activities. Companies such as Transorbital are not rich; they cave quickly. But now precedent is established: the U.S. claims the right to regulate U.S. companies' activities on the moon, even if launched from another country.
Editorially I add that the precedents established in cases such as Noriega and various internet sites overseas has given the U.S. expanded *expected* control of activies in other countries. We're essentially claiming, bit-by-bit, hegemony over the planet by any means necessary. It's not a vile conspiracy, merely the Logic of Empire.
Transorbital has been granted permission by the U.S. government to land on the moon.
Since when do we need permission to land on the moon? Does NASA own the damned thing?
Who grants permission to leave the Earth? I didn't know we had a warden.
"You tried to use my comments as a bully pulpit to rail against everything from immigration to social programs, and that was inappropriate."
I agree with all your other points. I, basically, didn't write enough in response, so that my point would have been clearer. I tend to write-and-run, because this sort of thing takes a lot of time.
Not against immigration: merely realistic that the H1B relaxation of about two years back flooded the tech job market and closed up options for employment. This is a fact.
The admin: I did rail against them, but I don't think it was inappropriate or "political" -- the tax cut and the new borrowing to finance 6.5 trillion bucks emptied out the SocSec funds with prejudice. Stick a fork in it: it's over. So now we collectively have to plan on working past 70.
As for the purpose of arguing, I was not arguing the subject in the original article was correct, or you incorrect either. I was pointing out that, with a boomlet of yunguns, a flood of H1B's permitted, and age discrimination more rampant than in the '60's (another era of no-over 30's need apply), a person over thirty seems like a kid pressed up agaist a candy store window, with no hope of ever going inside.
Someone over 30 shouldn't try to be an Olympic runner, but going into law enforcement or engineering shouldn't be a problem. A 35-yo can learn calc a lot faster than a 18 yo: not as distracted by the opposite sex, at the height of their mental faculties, fr more motivated (because, grimly, and realisitically, it's their last chance!). But, realistically, as you say, there is almost no chance for employment for a 35-40 year old new BS in CS.. some, but slim and vanishing.
As you say, I am being realistic, but this is not a good situation for either you or anyone else. You're aging too, and you may need to change careers two or three times in your life.
In Chicago last year, there was a such a critial shortage of new police recruits that they upped the age limit to... 40. They finally got their recruits, and I hope it works out well. I suspect that the older men and women will do better than their younger counterparts, since they are more motivated to succeed.
In conclusion, I think my comments appropriate.
"But don't wait until you're almost 40, already burnt out, and THEN decide you want this type of career "
What is someone over 30 and who wants to start a new career supposed to do, commit suicide?
Not everyone is 18-25, son. This forum's collective opinion to the contrary, there are over-25 yo's who can still contribute without wearing Depends.
We are likely to be the generation that will live to 100, hell, 120 or 150 years of age. If only 18-25 yo's, just fresh out of college, are the only people worth considering for law enforcement, or comp sci, or IT, or electronics, hell, anything other than McJobs, what the hell is the majority of the world's poulation supposed to do? Read Slashdot for the rest of their lies and weep that they are no longer 18 and fresh out of a good high school in the burbs?
This is a serious point. The population is aging, regardless of the Baby Boomlet kids of the 80's jamming up the employment pipes right now. The amount of ageism I encounter in real life and on fora such as these is also found in Human Resources departments I encounter daily.
Something's going to give here. Even with the H1B visa worker flood, there is a shortage of good talent everywhere -- good talent, not mediocre and hired 'cause they're young and fit the profile at HR. Ther's going to be 80 million or so aging Americans with no access to good jobs because of the prejudice and school snobbery of the Boomlet. With Social Sec killed by the current admin's "borrowing", where the hell is anyone supposed to make a living?
It was a loan shark. I thought everyone got the joke.
If you've never seen the high quality prints (for the sake of argument) how could you perceive a difference between what we see and what you see? Do you compare the quality to your domestic releases?
I go to a lot of second-run or third run cheapie theaters here in the U.S., and I never noticed the nasty image quality until someone pointed it out to me.
He wasn't comparing anyone to Hitler. He was making the point that people can spin reality into any number of lies. The "Hitler wasn't so bad" argument has been made many, many times in popular books and acedemia.
Hitler was bad, the DMCA is bad. They are not the same, but the impulse to justify either is laughable.
And don't forget capitalization, too.
Okay, human services is not teeny... but welfare is a small portion of that.
Notice that Human Services spending is just slightly more than the debt service?
Too tired to read the budget to give better breakdown... night all.