Working by yourself makes the assumption that you are the best there is at everything and you have the time to do everything quickly and efficiently. This does not mean that every task needs a commitee of ten idiots working with you. This does mean that having a 2nd person that is really good covering your weaknesses (and you in return) is something that will be immensely productive.
The problem lies in the fact that you can't just automatically put two people together and assume that that is the best case scenario.
Hete's the full text in case of a massive slashdotting of theit setvets:
IBM says Blue Gene bteaks speed tecotd 9/29/2004, 7:27 a.m. ET By ELLEN SIMON The Associated Ptess
NEW YOtK (AP) - IBM Cotp. claimed unofficial btagging tights Tuesday as ownet of the wotld's fastest supetcomputet.
Fot thtee yeats tunning, the fastest supetcomputet has been NEC's Eatth Simulatot in Japan.
"The fact that non-U.S. vendot like NEC had the fastest computet was seen as a big challenge fot U.S. computet industty," said Hotst Simon, ditectot of the supetcomputing centet at Lawtence Betkeley National Lab in Califotnia.
"That an Ametican vendot and an Ametican application has won back the No. 1 spot -- that's the main significance of this."
Eatth Simulatot can sustain speeds of 35.86 tetaflops.
IBM said its still-unfinished BlueGene/L System, named fot its ability to model the folding of human ptoteins, can sustain speeds of 36 tetaflops. A tetaflop is 1 ttillion calculations pet second.
Lawtence Livetmote National Labotatoty plans to install the Blue Gene/L system next yeat with 130,000 ptocessots and 64 tacks, half a tennis coutt in size. The labs will use it fot modeling the behaviot and aging of high explosives, asttophysics, cosmology and basic science, lab spokesman Bob Hitschfeld said.
The ptototype fot which IBM claimed the speed tecotd is located in tochestet, Minn., has 16,250 ptocessots and takes up eight tacks of space.
While IBM's speed sets a new benchmatk, the official list of the wotld's fastest supetcomputets will not be teleased until Novembet. A handful of scientists who audit the computets' tepotted speeds publish them on Top500.otg.
Supetcomputing is significant because of its implications fot national secutity as well as such fields as global climate modeling, asttophysics and genetic teseatch.
Supetcomputing technology IBM inttoduced a decade ago has evolved into a $3 billion to $4 billion business fot the company, said Simon.
Unlike the mote specialized atchitectute of the Japanese supetcomputet, IBM's BlueGene/L uses a detivative of commetcially available off-the-shelf ptocessots. It also uses an unusually latge numbet of them.
The tesulting computet is smallet and coolet than othet supetcomputets, teducing its tunning costs, said Hitschfeld. He did not have a dollat figute fot how much lowet Blue Gene's costs will be than othet supetcomputets.
Howevet, othet supetcomputets can do things Blue Gene cannot, such as ptoduce 3-D simulations of nucleat explosions, Hitschfeld said.
Sure, it makes sense. Anyone who gets one of these DSs probably has a computer and that computer probably has a good amount of media on it. It would be awesome to be able to carry some of that media (mp3s, videos, pictures) along with you. If that's the case the iRiver suddenly becomes extremely useless.
Not really anything different than working with any other person. Programming doesn't introduce some new kind of situation to deal with that teams of two haven't been dealing with for centuries.
So, my tips, just coming off about a year's worth of pair work:
1. The most important thing is that you have to be complementary. That is, their strengths have to fix your weaknesses, your strengths have to fix their weaknesses. If they don't have any strengths, it will be more like training for them, a mentor/student situation as opposed to a true team. 2. Think of it as a product. If "average" or "baseline" is 1, it helps if you're a 2.1 and they are a 1.4. If you're very good and they're not, the total suffers. Only work with someone that is as good as you or better, and only do it if you're very good to begin with. 3. Define exactly who is going to do what! This is not terribly succesful when managers do it because they're not you two -- they can't see you in action and suggest anything. It's up to you to figure out what works best --- split up all the different tasks so that each of you are doing what you do best. As you go along you will find out whether it's better to write these down and adhere to them or (better yet) have them be somewhat fluid so that some responsibilities cross over. 4. One system should keep track of what's going on. Whether that's a calendar you both use, a checklist pinned on the wall, an eraseboard, or just one of you two. 5. (Regarding the previous). Think in term of goals, not minutiae. You both should be good enough that if you're, for example, auto mechanics, one of you says, "Find out where the noise on the Pontiac is coming from" rather than saying "From 10:30 to 11:00 I want you to inspect the following parts and pieces of the Pontiac: A, B, C, D..." 6. Keep everyone else out of it! Once a system is established and you've learned to rely on each other it's going to be really obtrusive to have others meddle in. 7. Meet together with management whenever possible. 8. It helps if both of you have similar goals as to the level of your performance. Even if both of you are skilled gurus and one of you is checking job sites because they need to leave in the next six months, that's not going to work out.
This is, as I said before, from about a year's experience working day-to-day with only one other person. I hate paperwork, don't really like a lot of "busy" work and, in both cases, the other person just wasn't very good at some of the major intricacies of the position. The first time, we were more succesful than either of us was alone (generally being 2.5x times as productive as any individual). The second time, we were doing about as much as eihter of us were doing individually.
The good thing is that now I'm back by myself and have become a lot better thanks to the teamwork environment. I wasted a couple of months, but that's behind us now.
First off, I seriously doubt this has anything do with playing with the DS "online", that is, it having anything to do with the internet. A much more fasible, realistic, and practical idea is that the DS can detect others within a reasonable range. I would put this range somewhere south of 200m, even if that much. The whole network/online thing is more of a LAN than a WAN... Especially useful in larger cities or where kids congregate (mall, school, parks, etc) as opposed to rural areas. I have no desire, nor hope, to be able to text a friend an hour away using the DS. However, sitting in a cafe and seeing a list of 10 opponents to fight you in ZeldaMarioTroid is a bit more exciting.
Now, if for some insane reason the DS has a 1+ mile range then yeah, that's amazing. But I can guarantee that that is not the case. It's just a way to play online with people within sighting distance. Will come in handy in urban areas, colleges, etc. But Tommy in Montana might have a hard time finding 100 opponents.
The debates I really want to see are the Vice-Presidential debates. At least in 1992, when there was a third candidate, they were extremely interesting.
As anyone who saw them remembers, at one point Perot's VP (Vice Admiral Stockdale) did this:
GORE: Could I respond?
BRUNO: We have to go on. What I'm about to say doesn't apply to the debate tonight; it applies to the campaign that's been going on outside this auditorium. With 3 weeks to go, this campaign has at times been very ugly, with the tone being set by personal negative attacks.
As candidates, how does it look from your viewpoint? And are these tactics really necessary? Admiral Stockdale -- it's your turn to go first.
STOCKDALE: You know, I didn't have my hearing aid turned on. Tell me again.
At that point, I lost it in laughter.
In other news, it has been reported that countries with many parties usually have "coalitions" that form between the several parties so it ends up being one side vs. the other. Whether or not that makes the world more splintered and fragmented, I don't know, but it leaves you a little bit more of a choice. Right now, both parties are so centrist that you can barely tell them apart.
An interesting point. Unfortunately while we agree on us not footing the bill for kids, there's a (highly simplified) argument to look at. Just because it is simplified, of course, doesn't mean they are irrelevant.
Let's assume, first of all that the net present cost of any child is $1,000,000 for a parent. That is, all the costs over the lifetime of the child total $1m in today's dollars. This is of course plausible since people with kids usually have much higher costs than people with no kids (or DINKs - double income no kids - as market demographers like to call them).
The second question is, what are the net costs to society? These are costs that the parent does not directly or (100% indirectly) pay. For example, building prisons for kids that are criminals. The economic cost of maternity leave, etc. There's certainly a lot, and I'm not going to put a figure on this one. But there are also benefits. Certainly kids can turn out to be Picassos, or Einsteins, or Martin Luther King Jr.s. This of course can give immense benefits. Kids work for $8/hr at the mall so you don't pay too much for that shirt at 'Today's Man-Fashions of the USA'. If you want to be cynical, the Salvadorian 7-yr old who works in the sweatshop for $8/week is also giving you a benefit of a cheap shirt. Kids can bring joy. Kids pay for our budget deficits today. Etc.
So, is the societal net cost of a child positive or negative? I would say that it is positive, and if so, it is unfair to make parents pay for someone who will not give them a net beneficial gain but will give society as a whole a benefit. So, to some extent, it is worthwhile to give tax breaks to "America's working families" (as the President*) likes to call them to ease the economic burden. Now those need to be within certain guidelines because I have no problem paying $3000/yr in taxes so my next door neighbor's kid goes to a good school but I don't want to pay $9000/yr in taxes so my neighbor's kid goes to a good school, dresses in whatever new clothes Eck comes out with that season and gets driven to school in his mom's new SUV which she bought with the tax break she got in 2003.
So, yes, I will pay to make sure today's kids are well nourished, healthy, and educated (in that order), but not so their parents can buy them more PS2 games. But it is unfair to tax the parents who are providing the economy with cheap labor so I only pay $4 for a bucket of fries at the beach.
Reminds me of someone that spent $3000 just a couple of weeks ago because he wanted his kids to have a "good computer" for school, school being basic high school research kind of stuff. By my estimate he spent about an extra $2500 at Circuit City. Worse yet, he got a virus, and Circuit City told him to spend $100 on Systemworks + $100 in labor to remove the virus. As a favor I try and fix it and am confronted with a dialer to something-"pornous" the minute I launch his browser (IE of course).
I put on Ad-Aware, SSnD, and Firefox. But as they say, a fool and his $...
I have yet to find any DRM which (even on Windows!) can circumvent the following:
1. Turn off auto-run on all CD drives. 2. While the computer is off, put in a CD in the drive. 3. Upon boot, retrieve the music you paid for using a program like EAC.
Most DRM relies on #1 to begin with.
Now once Longhorn comes about, that's a different story (for Windows users).
Rewriting: In regards to social security, as a professional 25-year-old worker I'm concerned that I'm paying into a system, which is severely over-taxed and will be non-existent when I reach retirement. I would like to know what steps will be taken to either ensure I will get similar benefits to what I would receive if I retired today, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security in any way.
Bush sort of explained the answer in his 2004 State of the Union address: "My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers -- to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people. And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayers' dollars."
So, from my limited understanding, you can choose to have Social Security put into the market, pre-tax, similar to what 401(k)s and Roth IRAs are doing. By changing the question to not contributing at all, you remove this option.
Personally, I'd like to see Social Security phased out in the next 30 years. That's right, today's 35-45 year olds. You better start saving.
"What do you propose for changes in legislature to ensure a woman is not only allowed time off to stay at home, but can afford to do so by being paid for that time?"
Are you saying that the candidates should automatically agree to institute this quasi-socialist law? I don't have any problem with the "allowing time off to stay home" or "be guaranteed a job if I leave within the next X months" (where X paid for it? No. If you can't afford to have a child, do not have a child. Simple as that.
The majority of U.S. citizens, nine U.S. states, and several medical associations, support the use of medicinal marijuana. Mr. President, as Governor of Texas you once said that "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose." Do you plan on making medical marijuana a federal or state decision?
Notes: Most of the suits against states allowing the use of medicinal marijuana were filed during Clinton's time. (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/17/column. billpress/) The above question un-loads it by not having the candidate make it an issue of whether or not they support it, just whether it should be a federal or a state decision.
(Replying to the grandparent): "To me as a young voter this is the most discouraging aspect of trying to stay involved in the political process: my elected representatives make laws that represent my views as a citizen."
Laws like what? Patriot Act? Does that represent you?
Then you, sir, are an asshole.
(Replying to the parent): Your answer is correct, it seems like the question was scripted for such an answer.
This kind of question is a bit meaningless. I don't think "being able to vote online" should be in the top 100 questions asked to candidates, let alone top 20. Just my opinion.
All I know is that I spent $700 on my last desktop (11/03) and $7000* on the one before it (07/98). The $7000 was a great investment considering that through college I still had a "better" computer than a lot of other people.
If leaning towards the right makes them a buck, then I find it hard to believe they'd do otherwise. It may not be right, but it is their right.
So let's get right to the point, rightaway. So, right now, Google has the right to lean towards the right, eventhough it may not be right because they don't write news. But can you lean if you're only write about harmless entertainment like Edgar Wright? There doesn't seem to be a slant to the right if you're going to write about Rite-Aid. I mean, if I was going to be investing into a REIT I don't want any slants. Since Google went public, I can assume all this bashing is a rite of passage. All in all, Google News seems alright to me.
The heart is in the right place. But levels might be too confusing. Some other thoughts:
Have a series of different benchmarks. Let's say, a database app. Then we have some sort of encoding. Then we have a couple of gaming benchmarks. So in the end you're left with a report card. So for example, Dell's Insinuon 3400XT can do:
So Compaq seems to be a better at office and programming tasks, but not as good in gaming. Only thing is, this would all need to be done independently. So, sort of like the hardware review sites we have now, just not biased and more dumbed-down.
SharkyExtreme has been doing different "dream systems" for years now... The entry level gaming system + what it should have all the way to the Balls-Out millionaire system that does Doom3 at 1600x1200 in 64-bit color with textures turned on at 5.7fps.
I don't think our arguments are on opposite sides. Artists shouldn't have to worry about the quality of the CD printing, how they're going to distribute in Canada, and if they have enough E&O insurance.
However, they should be mindful of the contracts they sign and what effects those contracts have, especially when thousands of dollars and years of their career are at stake.
The majority of the acts seem to be highly succesful, artistically relevant artists, although the majority of those are way past their prime (the Stones, Aerosmith, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac) and haven't made anything terribly important recently except new T-shirt designs based on their third Greatest Hits compilation (which might have one new song or a remix of an old song).
The minority of those acts are talentless label-driven/label-created "products" (Matchbox 20, Christina Aguilera, to some extent Justin Timberlake, Eminem & 50 Cent). Note that Britney Spears does not even appear on that list (I'm sure she's on the Top 100).
Some acts no longer exist (the Beatles), some are gaining revenue based on their fame or past work (Queen Latifah, Ice Cube). Some acts are succesful despite the labels (most notably Phish, the Dead, Jimmy Buffet).
A lot of the artists on there are country acts, which you don't really hear about too much on filesharing discussions. And some of them you probably have never heard of (Eros Ramazotti, Trans Siberian Orchestra, Bill Gaither, Maná).
And out of all those 50, you can probably argue that only a handful (say, 8 or so), are artists who are really pursuing art and pushing boundaries as oppposed to touring based on past fame or ability.
But when you see that the top 10 artists netted (not tour-grossed) roughly $1bn, I'm not shedding any tears.
"as well as increasing the control that the recording industry holds over performers."
I'm not shedding a tear. People act as if labels are the only way to do things. Don't want to sign with Universal? Don't. Publish on your own. Don't use the labels. You still have a choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Working by yourself makes the assumption that you are the best there is at everything and you have the time to do everything quickly and efficiently. This does not mean that every task needs a commitee of ten idiots working with you. This does mean that having a 2nd person that is really good covering your weaknesses (and you in return) is something that will be immensely productive.
The problem lies in the fact that you can't just automatically put two people together and assume that that is the best case scenario.
Hete's the full text in case of a massive slashdotting of theit setvets:
IBM says Blue Gene bteaks speed tecotd
9/29/2004, 7:27 a.m. ET
By ELLEN SIMON
The Associated Ptess
NEW YOtK (AP) - IBM Cotp. claimed unofficial btagging tights Tuesday as ownet of the wotld's fastest supetcomputet.
Fot thtee yeats tunning, the fastest supetcomputet has been NEC's Eatth Simulatot in Japan.
"The fact that non-U.S. vendot like NEC had the fastest computet was seen as a big challenge fot U.S. computet industty," said Hotst Simon, ditectot of the supetcomputing centet at Lawtence Betkeley National Lab in Califotnia.
"That an Ametican vendot and an Ametican application has won back the No. 1 spot -- that's the main significance of this."
Eatth Simulatot can sustain speeds of 35.86 tetaflops.
IBM said its still-unfinished BlueGene/L System, named fot its ability to model the folding of human ptoteins, can sustain speeds of 36 tetaflops. A tetaflop is 1 ttillion calculations pet second.
Lawtence Livetmote National Labotatoty plans to install the Blue Gene/L system next yeat with 130,000 ptocessots and 64 tacks, half a tennis coutt in size. The labs will use it fot modeling the behaviot and aging of high explosives, asttophysics, cosmology and basic science, lab spokesman Bob Hitschfeld said.
The ptototype fot which IBM claimed the speed tecotd is located in tochestet, Minn., has 16,250 ptocessots and takes up eight tacks of space.
While IBM's speed sets a new benchmatk, the official list of the wotld's fastest supetcomputets will not be teleased until Novembet. A handful of scientists who audit the computets' tepotted speeds publish them on Top500.otg.
Supetcomputing is significant because of its implications fot national secutity as well as such fields as global climate modeling, asttophysics and genetic teseatch.
Supetcomputing technology IBM inttoduced a decade ago has evolved into a $3 billion to $4 billion business fot the company, said Simon.
Unlike the mote specialized atchitectute of the Japanese supetcomputet, IBM's BlueGene/L uses a detivative of commetcially available off-the-shelf ptocessots. It also uses an unusually latge numbet of them.
The tesulting computet is smallet and coolet than othet supetcomputets, teducing its tunning costs, said Hitschfeld. He did not have a dollat figute fot how much lowet Blue Gene's costs will be than othet supetcomputets.
Howevet, othet supetcomputets can do things Blue Gene cannot, such as ptoduce 3-D simulations of nucleat explosions, Hitschfeld said.
There's only one thing that dog should be able to do, and as far as I can tell, that's been covered already.
That's right, Rolfie. Come to papa with his brandy.
Sure, it makes sense. Anyone who gets one of these DSs probably has a computer and that computer probably has a good amount of media on it. It would be awesome to be able to carry some of that media (mp3s, videos, pictures) along with you. If that's the case the iRiver suddenly becomes extremely useless.
Not really anything different than working with any other person. Programming doesn't introduce some new kind of situation to deal with that teams of two haven't been dealing with for centuries.
So, my tips, just coming off about a year's worth of pair work:
1. The most important thing is that you have to be complementary. That is, their strengths have to fix your weaknesses, your strengths have to fix their weaknesses. If they don't have any strengths, it will be more like training for them, a mentor/student situation as opposed to a true team.
2. Think of it as a product. If "average" or "baseline" is 1, it helps if you're a 2.1 and they are a 1.4. If you're very good and they're not, the total suffers. Only work with someone that is as good as you or better, and only do it if you're very good to begin with.
3. Define exactly who is going to do what! This is not terribly succesful when managers do it because they're not you two -- they can't see you in action and suggest anything. It's up to you to figure out what works best --- split up all the different tasks so that each of you are doing what you do best. As you go along you will find out whether it's better to write these down and adhere to them or (better yet) have them be somewhat fluid so that some responsibilities cross over.
4. One system should keep track of what's going on. Whether that's a calendar you both use, a checklist pinned on the wall, an eraseboard, or just one of you two.
5. (Regarding the previous). Think in term of goals, not minutiae. You both should be good enough that if you're, for example, auto mechanics, one of you says, "Find out where the noise on the Pontiac is coming from" rather than saying "From 10:30 to 11:00 I want you to inspect the following parts and pieces of the Pontiac: A, B, C, D..."
6. Keep everyone else out of it! Once a system is established and you've learned to rely on each other it's going to be really obtrusive to have others meddle in.
7. Meet together with management whenever possible.
8. It helps if both of you have similar goals as to the level of your performance. Even if both of you are skilled gurus and one of you is checking job sites because they need to leave in the next six months, that's not going to work out.
This is, as I said before, from about a year's experience working day-to-day with only one other person. I hate paperwork, don't really like a lot of "busy" work and, in both cases, the other person just wasn't very good at some of the major intricacies of the position. The first time, we were more succesful than either of us was alone (generally being 2.5x times as productive as any individual). The second time, we were doing about as much as eihter of us were doing individually.
The good thing is that now I'm back by myself and have become a lot better thanks to the teamwork environment. I wasted a couple of months, but that's behind us now.
First off, I seriously doubt this has anything do with playing with the DS "online", that is, it having anything to do with the internet. A much more fasible, realistic, and practical idea is that the DS can detect others within a reasonable range. I would put this range somewhere south of 200m, even if that much. The whole network/online thing is more of a LAN than a WAN... Especially useful in larger cities or where kids congregate (mall, school, parks, etc) as opposed to rural areas. I have no desire, nor hope, to be able to text a friend an hour away using the DS. However, sitting in a cafe and seeing a list of 10 opponents to fight you in ZeldaMarioTroid is a bit more exciting.
Now, if for some insane reason the DS has a 1+ mile range then yeah, that's amazing. But I can guarantee that that is not the case. It's just a way to play online with people within sighting distance. Will come in handy in urban areas, colleges, etc. But Tommy in Montana might have a hard time finding 100 opponents.
As anyone who saw them remembers, at one point Perot's VP (Vice Admiral Stockdale) did this:
At that point, I lost it in laughter.
In other news, it has been reported that countries with many parties usually have "coalitions" that form between the several parties so it ends up being one side vs. the other. Whether or not that makes the world more splintered and fragmented, I don't know, but it leaves you a little bit more of a choice. Right now, both parties are so centrist that you can barely tell them apart.
An interesting point. Unfortunately while we agree on us not footing the bill for kids, there's a (highly simplified) argument to look at. Just because it is simplified, of course, doesn't mean they are irrelevant.
Let's assume, first of all that the net present cost of any child is $1,000,000 for a parent. That is, all the costs over the lifetime of the child total $1m in today's dollars. This is of course plausible since people with kids usually have much higher costs than people with no kids (or DINKs - double income no kids - as market demographers like to call them).
The second question is, what are the net costs to society? These are costs that the parent does not directly or (100% indirectly) pay. For example, building prisons for kids that are criminals. The economic cost of maternity leave, etc. There's certainly a lot, and I'm not going to put a figure on this one. But there are also benefits. Certainly kids can turn out to be Picassos, or Einsteins, or Martin Luther King Jr.s. This of course can give immense benefits. Kids work for $8/hr at the mall so you don't pay too much for that shirt at 'Today's Man-Fashions of the USA'. If you want to be cynical, the Salvadorian 7-yr old who works in the sweatshop for $8/week is also giving you a benefit of a cheap shirt. Kids can bring joy. Kids pay for our budget deficits today. Etc.
So, is the societal net cost of a child positive or negative? I would say that it is positive, and if so, it is unfair to make parents pay for someone who will not give them a net beneficial gain but will give society as a whole a benefit. So, to some extent, it is worthwhile to give tax breaks to "America's working families" (as the President*) likes to call them to ease the economic burden. Now those need to be within certain guidelines because I have no problem paying $3000/yr in taxes so my next door neighbor's kid goes to a good school but I don't want to pay $9000/yr in taxes so my neighbor's kid goes to a good school, dresses in whatever new clothes Eck comes out with that season and gets driven to school in his mom's new SUV which she bought with the tax break she got in 2003.
So, yes, I will pay to make sure today's kids are well nourished, healthy, and educated (in that order), but not so their parents can buy them more PS2 games. But it is unfair to tax the parents who are providing the economy with cheap labor so I only pay $4 for a bucket of fries at the beach.
* Any President.
Reminds me of someone that spent $3000 just a couple of weeks ago because he wanted his kids to have a "good computer" for school, school being basic high school research kind of stuff. By my estimate he spent about an extra $2500 at Circuit City. Worse yet, he got a virus, and Circuit City told him to spend $100 on Systemworks + $100 in labor to remove the virus. As a favor I try and fix it and am confronted with a dialer to something-"pornous" the minute I launch his browser (IE of course).
I put on Ad-Aware, SSnD, and Firefox. But as they say, a fool and his $...
I have yet to find any DRM which (even on Windows!) can circumvent the following:
1. Turn off auto-run on all CD drives.
2. While the computer is off, put in a CD in the drive.
3. Upon boot, retrieve the music you paid for using a program like EAC.
Most DRM relies on #1 to begin with.
Now once Longhorn comes about, that's a different story (for Windows users).
Psst. You don't need to go to college to compete for a job as a busboy at Steak & Ale or as a loader of manure at a mushroom farm.
Grow the fuck up.
(And here I get moderated flamebait).
Rewriting: In regards to social security, as a professional 25-year-old worker I'm concerned that I'm paying into a system, which is severely over-taxed and will be non-existent when I reach retirement. I would like to know what steps will be taken to either ensure I will get similar benefits to what I would receive if I retired today, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security in any way.
Bush sort of explained the answer in his 2004 State of the Union address: "My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers -- to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people. And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayers' dollars."
So, from my limited understanding, you can choose to have Social Security put into the market, pre-tax, similar to what 401(k)s and Roth IRAs are doing. By changing the question to not contributing at all, you remove this option.
Personally, I'd like to see Social Security phased out in the next 30 years. That's right, today's 35-45 year olds. You better start saving.
"What do you propose for changes in legislature to ensure a woman is not only allowed time off to stay at home, but can afford to do so by being paid for that time?"
Are you saying that the candidates should automatically agree to institute this quasi-socialist law? I don't have any problem with the "allowing time off to stay home" or "be guaranteed a job if I leave within the next X months" (where X paid for it? No. If you can't afford to have a child, do not have a child. Simple as that.
The majority of U.S. citizens, nine U.S. states, and several medical associations, support the use of medicinal marijuana. Mr. President, as Governor of Texas you once said that "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose." Do you plan on making medical marijuana a federal or state decision?
. billpress/)
Notes:
Most of the suits against states allowing the use of medicinal marijuana were filed during Clinton's time. (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/17/column
The above question un-loads it by not having the candidate make it an issue of whether or not they support it, just whether it should be a federal or a state decision.
(Replying to the grandparent): "To me as a young voter this is the most discouraging aspect of trying to stay involved in the political process: my elected representatives make laws that represent my views as a citizen."
Laws like what? Patriot Act? Does that represent you?
Then you, sir, are an asshole.
(Replying to the parent): Your answer is correct, it seems like the question was scripted for such an answer.
This kind of question is a bit meaningless. I don't think "being able to vote online" should be in the top 100 questions asked to candidates, let alone top 20. Just my opinion.
Infinity plus four weeks days is still infinity...
Don't be mad. This is just a bootleg of the previous post.
All I know is that I spent $700 on my last desktop (11/03) and $7000* on the one before it (07/98). The $7000 was a great investment considering that through college I still had a "better" computer than a lot of other people.
* Including upgrades through 07/2000.
So let's get right to the point, rightaway. So, right now, Google has the right to lean towards the right, eventhough it may not be right because they don't write news. But can you lean if you're only write about harmless entertainment like Edgar Wright? There doesn't seem to be a slant to the right if you're going to write about Rite-Aid. I mean, if I was going to be investing into a REIT I don't want any slants. Since Google went public, I can assume all this bashing is a rite of passage. All in all, Google News seems alright to me.
(Sorry, I have no puns *ahem* left.)
The heart is in the right place. But levels might be too confusing. Some other thoughts:
Have a series of different benchmarks. Let's say, a database app. Then we have some sort of encoding. Then we have a couple of gaming benchmarks. So in the end you're left with a report card. So for example, Dell's Insinuon 3400XT can do:
OfficeBoooost(TM): 93.23/s
DataMerge(TM): 2103s
VideoN-Code(TM): 3402s
GameTronix(TM): 67.2 FPS
CompyCompil-O(TM): 3049s
DataGRAB(TM): 56.4MB/s
But then you see Compaq's Avera-G 32 can do:
OfficeBoooost(TM): 143.23/s
DataMerge(TM): 1731s
VideoN-Code(TM): 6230s
GameTronix(TM): 37.2 FPS
CompyCompil-O(TM): 451s
DataGRAB(TM):43.1MB/s
So Compaq seems to be a better at office and programming tasks, but not as good in gaming. Only thing is, this would all need to be done independently. So, sort of like the hardware review sites we have now, just not biased and more dumbed-down.
SharkyExtreme has been doing different "dream systems" for years now... The entry level gaming system + what it should have all the way to the Balls-Out millionaire system that does Doom3 at 1600x1200 in 64-bit color with textures turned on at 5.7fps.
I don't think our arguments are on opposite sides. Artists shouldn't have to worry about the quality of the CD printing, how they're going to distribute in Canada, and if they have enough E&O insurance.
However, they should be mindful of the contracts they sign and what effects those contracts have, especially when thousands of dollars and years of their career are at stake.
Define "superstar" -- plenty of artists are popular because of filesharing/filetrading that they promote (or at least don't try to stop).
Well, when you see the list of the top grossing musicians of 2004 it roughly breaks down like this:
The majority of the acts seem to be highly succesful, artistically relevant artists, although the majority of those are way past their prime (the Stones, Aerosmith, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac) and haven't made anything terribly important recently except new T-shirt designs based on their third Greatest Hits compilation (which might have one new song or a remix of an old song).
The minority of those acts are talentless label-driven/label-created "products" (Matchbox 20, Christina Aguilera, to some extent Justin Timberlake, Eminem & 50 Cent). Note that Britney Spears does not even appear on that list (I'm sure she's on the Top 100).
Some acts no longer exist (the Beatles), some are gaining revenue based on their fame or past work (Queen Latifah, Ice Cube). Some acts are succesful despite the labels (most notably Phish, the Dead, Jimmy Buffet).
It also appears that 2% of the most succesful artists are children of Ravi Shankar.
A lot of the artists on there are country acts, which you don't really hear about too much on filesharing discussions. And some of them you probably have never heard of (Eros Ramazotti, Trans Siberian Orchestra, Bill Gaither, Maná).
And out of all those 50, you can probably argue that only a handful (say, 8 or so), are artists who are really pursuing art and pushing boundaries as oppposed to touring based on past fame or ability.
But when you see that the top 10 artists netted (not tour-grossed) roughly $1bn, I'm not shedding any tears.
"as well as increasing the control that the recording industry holds over performers."
I'm not shedding a tear. People act as if labels are the only way to do things. Don't want to sign with Universal? Don't. Publish on your own. Don't use the labels. You still have a choice.