The solution to this, is find a company where they promote engineers into management.
A good example is Lockheed Martin. (don't get me wrong - LM's work environment has plenty of drawbacks - but the business vs engineering rivalry is not one of them). There are many others. There are some fields where the work is simply too technical to trust to your typical brain-dead MBA. I think LM is like this, because their customer is the government (typically the military) - and there really is no "sales" function. They have PR, of course, but they don't need to market their products to end users.
There ARE people out there, who simply have no conscience. The true Sociopaths. I have met one or two, in my time. One guy, it took me about 20 minutes of talking with him, to figure out that he just did not have any sense of ethics or morals to him, and later, he would scoff at people who do. I was very unfortunate to have had to know this person, and do business with him for 2 years. Of course, he begged for help at one point, and I gave it to him, and of course he stabbed me in the back in return.
You need to listen to your gut on these people. I didn't. I ignored that little voice that told me I was being rude or "not a team player". Don't ignore that little voice, that gut-feeling, or you will get FUCKED. Because these people are fucking everywhere.
There are also people who have the capability to feel guilt - (many more than there are sociopaths). But they also have the ability to avoid feeling it by blaming others for what they did. These people are very common, and it is hard to identify them, and often, they won't stab you in the back like a sociopath will. But when they do, they'll squirm over the guilt. And then they'll blame someone else. When their story does not make sense - that's how you know you've met one of these. Don't feel sorry for these worthless fucks either.
Similar; but I was lucky enough to have an employer who paid tuition reimbursement; so I'm also, very near to completing my degree. Also making the transition from SE to Development; in a nice little secure niche - (with the understanding that it could be turned upside down at any moment, just like any other niche).
My regrets are many, but the biggest one was not seeking my degree sooner. In the 1990's, if you could turn-on a computer, you were golden. Nowadays, they *are* quite snippy about that degree. The annoying thing is - MOST of the classes I took in the first 3 years were so easy, because I already knew pretty much everything. This last year has been harder. Who knew relational databases were so complicated?:)
I didn't seek a degree until I was laid off in 2002, and the job market then, was pretty tough - I took a huge pay cut, and had to work with no benefits for a year and a half; my house payment sure didn't go down! I fought my way back to where I should have been (salary-wise) 5 years ago. It cost me a great deal, in terms of stress, time lost that I could have spent with my kids, etc. Had I gotten my degree in the 1990's, I probably still would have been laid off, but my new job probably would not have been such a huge setback - and I would have been able to spend more time with my family during some really important years. As it is now; I work my full time job, and take classes, and I will be very grateful when I'm done at the end of this semester, because my kids will only be this age for a few more years.
Congress is to blame, true. And they use the presidency and abuse of presidential power as an EXCUSE.
And you may say that it was extremist republicans who did all this; but on many occasions, Democrats had plenty of opportunity to at least voice opposition. They did not.
It is true that during the worst years, 2003-2005, not only were Democrats prohibited from any participation in debate, they were not even permitted to use federal offices to hold hearings. It was truly an egregious breach of our cherished rights.
On the other hand, these craven idiots didn't even bother to vote "no" when Bush wanted to ram through brazen partisan appointments, let alone even a symbolic "no" on many bills they TALKED about opposing (like the bankruptcy bill that is currently eating our economy like a wasp-larvae in a paralyzed tarantula).
One has to wonder if the republicans didn't have some nasty blackmail against the democrats. (like donkey-sex photos or something). I mean, really. At least Obama had the balls to stand up and oppose the war where everyone else, even Democrats (except for Kucinich) just rolled over and spread their legs.
If I thought that any third party candidate had a chance at 25% of the vote, I might risk my vote.
Nader got my vote in the 2% or so he got in 2000. (Gore won my state handily, so my vote for Nader did not elect Bush).
Until then; I'm going to keep voting for the lesser of two evils. This country and it's political and electoral system need significant structural change before any third party is even remotely viable. Such change is inevitable, but it is also impossible within "the system". Some "outside the system" changes are going to be necessary. Most likely involving tanks and bombs. And it won't be pretty. You think your real-estate values are in the toilet now?
I have no problem with a politician who, coming to knew knowledge and information, is capable of making a rational decision and changing his or her mind. In fact, I demand it.
Where I have a problem with promise-breaking in politicians, is when the change in stance comes from a desire to get $$$donations$$$, or when there was no reasonable expectation on that promise in the first place (ie. they used weasel-words when they made the promise - come on, we all know what these are, and how they work).
The problem is, it is very difficult, in practice, to prove when a stance change comes in response to $$$. Which is why it's been so difficult to legislate against it.
However, I think that when it's proven, (and public figures should be compelled to have a lot more transparency to their financial transactions, for this reason, they maintain the public trust: trust, but VERIFY!) - when it's proven there was quid-pro-quo for $$$, the offending politician should be skinned alive on pay-per-view, as a traitor.
Maybe Obama was counting on the unconstitutionality of immunity, knowing that it would be stricken. Being a professor of constitutional law and all . . .
Yeah, as opposed to McCain who is only in favor of two amendments: Like most rightwingers. . . 2nd (because it gets him donations and support from the NRA), and the 5th (because it keeps him and his friends in the banking and financial industries out of jail).
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I would suggest that, yes, those subjects SHOULD be mentioned. And they should be used as examples of wrongness. You say that we should use critical thinking to determine what is and is not taught? Screw that! I think we need to be teaching OUR KIDS critical thinking.
(In fact, I think that Alchemy was 'taught' in my High School chemistry class - and it was taught as an example of how the ancients "got it wrong" - and how, transmutation of elements *is* theoretically possible (nuclear physics) but not by any known chemical process.
In fact, in my HS Biology classes, I remember also being taught about "alternatives" to Evolution - and even outright fraud like Pildown Man. These bolstered student's critical thinking skills, and knowledge of the Scientific Method - how it works, and why it is the way that it is.
Freedom of Speech means, Bad Ideas get the honest debunking they so richly deserve - and the listeners to that speech don't have to be bothered with people who believe in that garbage, because they'll not only know it's crap, but they'll know the reasons WHY. However, there is a certain responsibility by the defenders of the correct ideas - to have to carry the weight of being skillful enough and knowledgeable enough to call out liars and charlatans, and to resist the temptation to just silence critics and dingbats. That's the easy way out, and it serves no purpose other than to give the purveyors of pseudoscience a perceived platform of martyrdom from which to continue to spew their garbage. This lends an air of credibility to completely undeserving ideas; and does more harm than good.
If nothing else, when teaching Biology and Evolution, the "idea" of creationism SHOULD be discussed - if for no other reason, than as a concrete and relevant example to demonstrate to students, how the Scientific Method works to debunk garbage.
The best part of this is that every student can be taught the basic arguments AGAINST creationism; why it is NOT a theory on par with Evolution, why it is unscientific, and why Science informs us about the true nature of our reality far better than myths and legends.
Does this waste valuable classroom time which would be better spent on teaching scientific facts?
Possibly - but Science class is not all about teaching facts. Science should be first and foremost about teaching Scientific Method and sound Critical Thinking skills. If a student forgets every scientific fact they ever learned in science class, but remembers the methodology, then they should (theoretically) be able to derive everything else for themselves. It is this fundamental concept that is far more important than the memorization of facts. The reason why pseudoscience and other crap is so dangerous, is because kids who have been taught the facts, were not taught to THINK for themselves. So when they're taught about dinosaur fossils on Wednesday, then someone else comes along on Sunday and tells them it was Satan trying to fool them, what do you think they'll believe? If they don't have those critical thinking skills, they'll believe whomever they feel is the higher authority (a logical fallacy). Well, they've already been told that their Creator is the highest authority by default, and that scripture (myth and legend) comes directly from there - so Science class doesn't even have a chance.
And it was never intended to be the SOLE vehicle in the space program. It was actually intended to be a proof-of-concept reusable, and many follow-up reusable launch vehicle concepts were planned, but never executed. Even the original upgrades to the shuttle (the larger SRB's permitting launch from the Western Range) were dropped early-on.
Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush dropped the ball in a big, bad, way, by not funding additional support for US spaceflight.
To Reagan's credit, at least under his watch, after the Challenger disaster, they did fire-up the EELV program so that at least medium-sized payloads could still be launched.
Once spacelaunch became more about business, and less about the heavy-lift (ie. bigger nuke) capability pissing-contest, the political will to fund development ceased. But hey - the business folk have now succeeded in putting a guy 100 km into space, so I guess that's progress in 30 years. (btw - is that profitable yet? Ask the spreadsheet jockeys down in accounting? Didn't think so.)
I guess once we figured out how to put stuff up there, and then how to shoot down other people's stuff, we don't really need anything else, now, do we?
There will be more banking failures, but my fear is by then there won't be any free capital left in the US to reinvest and reinvigorate when the whole process winds up
Aw, come on, you know that the Fed will just lower interest rates, print more money, and everything will be fine! It's the "new economy" after all. If P/E ratios don't have to make sense, and if companies can grow to billions of market cap with no real revenue, then certainly we can just ask the government to print more money when it's needed!
Same with my inlaws. They both work, and for one reason only: to maintain health insurance until medicaid begins covering them.
My parents didn't do that, because my father had a really good pension from his job. Such plans are not possible to find outside of executive positions, these days.
It's happening already; my STUPID neighbor wouldn't listen to me, and bought an H3. He has not driven that beast in 6 months, continues to make payments (including insurance), and carpools to work in his co-worker's PRIUS!
Market forces will phase-out gas guzzlers. Because that is the only force on earth capable of compelling people to give them up. It won't be painless, but hey, nobody ever said that the Invisible Hand was always gentle, or used lube.
Heated up is NOT the only thing that you have to do to vegetable oil to make it work in a diesel engine.
You also MUST filter it, because particles and contaminants will mess up your engine.
AND - you MUST remove any water in the oil; because this also will destroy your engine (especially a turbo-diesel). Most vegetable oil contains significant quantities of water, and it's not all that easy (for the home-brewer) to remove. (this applies to both biodiesel and SVO burners).
I have heard many horror stories of people killing their engines on home-brew SVO and biodiesel. My local COMMERCIAL supplier (JB Dewar) has had to reject several recent batches due to poor quality control (ie. contaminants and water content).
Had the cell phones of the passengers on flight 93 been disabled by this technology, the passengers might not have learned of the hijackers' plans, and the hijackers might have succeeded in reaching their target. (speculated to have been Sears' Tower in Chicago, or possibly the US Capitol).
Leadership positions ARE required for advancement. There are Boy-Leadership positions (Senior Patrol Leader, Patrol Leader) - and there are Adult Leadership positions. (Boy Scouts who are over 18, who volunteer their time, though they can no longer advance to Eagle - there is an adult-equivalent advancement-track, but it's mainly just to keep bored dads engaged). It is the Adult Leadership positions that they're banned from - because there are specific requirements for activities, needing adult chaperones.
Now: the BSA's Youth Protection Training program (anti sex-abuse), if adhered to, should prevent any abuses that anyone might be afraid of, with a Gay Adult Leader. Including spurious lawsuits! So the restriction on gays as Adult Leaders is rooted more in bigotry than practical considerations.
For my part - I find it extremely valuable - for everyone involved, to have young men (18 or older, but not yet having kids of their own in scouting) volunteer as adult leaders. Keeping out gays from this function is actually pretty stupid. These are the guys who have the time to assist on all the campouts, supervise, and help provide skill training. (for what it's worth, our 18+ adult leaders know their knots cold: NONE of the dads know their knots!)
We can fight against bigotry all we want. It's an ideal.
But in reality, one will always encounter difficult people, including bigots. You can let them be a roadblock, or you can flow like water around these obstacles, and still get to where you want to go.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution to this, is find a company where they promote engineers into management.
A good example is Lockheed Martin. (don't get me wrong - LM's work environment has plenty of drawbacks - but the business vs engineering rivalry is not one of them). There are many others. There are some fields where the work is simply too technical to trust to your typical brain-dead MBA. I think LM is like this, because their customer is the government (typically the military) - and there really is no "sales" function. They have PR, of course, but they don't need to market their products to end users.
(disclaimer: I don't work for them anymore. . . )
No sales-weasels=pure engineering goodness.
Yes; it is true.
There ARE people out there, who simply have no conscience. The true Sociopaths. I have met one or two, in my time. One guy, it took me about 20 minutes of talking with him, to figure out that he just did not have any sense of ethics or morals to him, and later, he would scoff at people who do. I was very unfortunate to have had to know this person, and do business with him for 2 years. Of course, he begged for help at one point, and I gave it to him, and of course he stabbed me in the back in return.
You need to listen to your gut on these people. I didn't. I ignored that little voice that told me I was being rude or "not a team player". Don't ignore that little voice, that gut-feeling, or you will get FUCKED. Because these people are fucking everywhere.
There are also people who have the capability to feel guilt - (many more than there are sociopaths). But they also have the ability to avoid feeling it by blaming others for what they did. These people are very common, and it is hard to identify them, and often, they won't stab you in the back like a sociopath will. But when they do, they'll squirm over the guilt. And then they'll blame someone else. When their story does not make sense - that's how you know you've met one of these. Don't feel sorry for these worthless fucks either.
Similar; but I was lucky enough to have an employer who paid tuition reimbursement; so I'm also, very near to completing my degree. Also making the transition from SE to Development; in a nice little secure niche - (with the understanding that it could be turned upside down at any moment, just like any other niche).
My regrets are many, but the biggest one was not seeking my degree sooner. In the 1990's, if you could turn-on a computer, you were golden. Nowadays, they *are* quite snippy about that degree. The annoying thing is - MOST of the classes I took in the first 3 years were so easy, because I already knew pretty much everything. This last year has been harder. Who knew relational databases were so complicated? :)
I didn't seek a degree until I was laid off in 2002, and the job market then, was pretty tough - I took a huge pay cut, and had to work with no benefits for a year and a half; my house payment sure didn't go down! I fought my way back to where I should have been (salary-wise) 5 years ago. It cost me a great deal, in terms of stress, time lost that I could have spent with my kids, etc. Had I gotten my degree in the 1990's, I probably still would have been laid off, but my new job probably would not have been such a huge setback - and I would have been able to spend more time with my family during some really important years. As it is now; I work my full time job, and take classes, and I will be very grateful when I'm done at the end of this semester, because my kids will only be this age for a few more years.
Government owns foreclosed houses?
Next step: New GI bill=houses for vets!
Congress is to blame, true. And they use the presidency and abuse of presidential power as an EXCUSE.
And you may say that it was extremist republicans who did all this; but on many occasions, Democrats had plenty of opportunity to at least voice opposition. They did not.
It is true that during the worst years, 2003-2005, not only were Democrats prohibited from any participation in debate, they were not even permitted to use federal offices to hold hearings. It was truly an egregious breach of our cherished rights.
On the other hand, these craven idiots didn't even bother to vote "no" when Bush wanted to ram through brazen partisan appointments, let alone even a symbolic "no" on many bills they TALKED about opposing (like the bankruptcy bill that is currently eating our economy like a wasp-larvae in a paralyzed tarantula).
One has to wonder if the republicans didn't have some nasty blackmail against the democrats. (like donkey-sex photos or something). I mean, really. At least Obama had the balls to stand up and oppose the war where everyone else, even Democrats (except for Kucinich) just rolled over and spread their legs.
If I thought that any third party candidate had a chance at 25% of the vote, I might risk my vote.
Nader got my vote in the 2% or so he got in 2000. (Gore won my state handily, so my vote for Nader did not elect Bush).
Until then; I'm going to keep voting for the lesser of two evils. This country and it's political and electoral system need significant structural change before any third party is even remotely viable. Such change is inevitable, but it is also impossible within "the system". Some "outside the system" changes are going to be necessary. Most likely involving tanks and bombs. And it won't be pretty. You think your real-estate values are in the toilet now?
Well, there was the Clinton-era "Contract with America" the Republicans used to take over congress in 1994.
Most of the provisions remained unfulfilled. To this day.
Republicans tried to gin up another one this year, but it was rejected.
I have no problem with a politician who, coming to knew knowledge and information, is capable of making a rational decision and changing his or her mind. In fact, I demand it.
Where I have a problem with promise-breaking in politicians, is when the change in stance comes from a desire to get $$$donations$$$, or when there was no reasonable expectation on that promise in the first place (ie. they used weasel-words when they made the promise - come on, we all know what these are, and how they work).
The problem is, it is very difficult, in practice, to prove when a stance change comes in response to $$$. Which is why it's been so difficult to legislate against it.
However, I think that when it's proven, (and public figures should be compelled to have a lot more transparency to their financial transactions, for this reason, they maintain the public trust: trust, but VERIFY!) - when it's proven there was quid-pro-quo for $$$, the offending politician should be skinned alive on pay-per-view, as a traitor.
Maybe Obama was counting on the unconstitutionality of immunity, knowing that it would be stricken. Being a professor of constitutional law and all . . .
Yeah, as opposed to McCain who is only in favor of two amendments:
Like most rightwingers. . .
2nd (because it gets him donations and support from the NRA), and the 5th (because it keeps him and his friends in the banking and financial industries out of jail).
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I would suggest that, yes, those subjects SHOULD be mentioned. And they should be used as examples of wrongness. You say that we should use critical thinking to determine what is and is not taught? Screw that! I think we need to be teaching OUR KIDS critical thinking.
(In fact, I think that Alchemy was 'taught' in my High School chemistry class - and it was taught as an example of how the ancients "got it wrong" - and how, transmutation of elements *is* theoretically possible (nuclear physics) but not by any known chemical process.
In fact, in my HS Biology classes, I remember also being taught about "alternatives" to Evolution - and even outright fraud like Pildown Man. These bolstered student's critical thinking skills, and knowledge of the Scientific Method - how it works, and why it is the way that it is.
Freedom of Speech means, Bad Ideas get the honest debunking they so richly deserve - and the listeners to that speech don't have to be bothered with people who believe in that garbage, because they'll not only know it's crap, but they'll know the reasons WHY. However, there is a certain responsibility by the defenders of the correct ideas - to have to carry the weight of being skillful enough and knowledgeable enough to call out liars and charlatans, and to resist the temptation to just silence critics and dingbats. That's the easy way out, and it serves no purpose other than to give the purveyors of pseudoscience a perceived platform of martyrdom from which to continue to spew their garbage. This lends an air of credibility to completely undeserving ideas; and does more harm than good.
If nothing else, when teaching Biology and Evolution, the "idea" of creationism SHOULD be discussed - if for no other reason, than as a concrete and relevant example to demonstrate to students, how the Scientific Method works to debunk garbage.
The best part of this is that every student can be taught the basic arguments AGAINST creationism; why it is NOT a theory on par with Evolution, why it is unscientific, and why Science informs us about the true nature of our reality far better than myths and legends.
Does this waste valuable classroom time which would be better spent on teaching scientific facts?
Possibly - but Science class is not all about teaching facts. Science should be first and foremost about teaching Scientific Method and sound Critical Thinking skills. If a student forgets every scientific fact they ever learned in science class, but remembers the methodology, then they should (theoretically) be able to derive everything else for themselves. It is this fundamental concept that is far more important than the memorization of facts. The reason why pseudoscience and other crap is so dangerous, is because kids who have been taught the facts, were not taught to THINK for themselves. So when they're taught about dinosaur fossils on Wednesday, then someone else comes along on Sunday and tells them it was Satan trying to fool them, what do you think they'll believe? If they don't have those critical thinking skills, they'll believe whomever they feel is the higher authority (a logical fallacy). Well, they've already been told that their Creator is the highest authority by default, and that scripture (myth and legend) comes directly from there - so Science class doesn't even have a chance.
dude, you rock!
yes, the shuttle is an orbiter.
And it was never intended to be the SOLE vehicle in the space program. It was actually intended to be a proof-of-concept reusable, and many follow-up reusable launch vehicle concepts were planned, but never executed. Even the original upgrades to the shuttle (the larger SRB's permitting launch from the Western Range) were dropped early-on.
Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush dropped the ball in a big, bad, way, by not funding additional support for US spaceflight.
To Reagan's credit, at least under his watch, after the Challenger disaster, they did fire-up the EELV program so that at least medium-sized payloads could still be launched.
Once spacelaunch became more about business, and less about the heavy-lift (ie. bigger nuke) capability pissing-contest, the political will to fund development ceased. But hey - the business folk have now succeeded in putting a guy 100 km into space, so I guess that's progress in 30 years. (btw - is that profitable yet? Ask the spreadsheet jockeys down in accounting? Didn't think so.)
I guess once we figured out how to put stuff up there, and then how to shoot down other people's stuff, we don't really need anything else, now, do we?
There will be more banking failures, but my fear is by then there won't be any free capital left in the US to reinvest and reinvigorate when the whole process winds up
Aw, come on, you know that the Fed will just lower interest rates, print more money, and everything will be fine! It's the "new economy" after all. If P/E ratios don't have to make sense, and if companies can grow to billions of market cap with no real revenue, then certainly we can just ask the government to print more money when it's needed!
Same with my inlaws. They both work, and for one reason only: to maintain health insurance until medicaid begins covering them.
My parents didn't do that, because my father had a really good pension from his job. Such plans are not possible to find outside of executive positions, these days.
Nothing gets money spent like war?
That's because, nothing justifies the value of a fiat currency better than the threat of invasion and destruction.
Getting the picture?
What's it good for? Elections
Yes.
High gas prices = high oil company profits = high ceo salaries = oh my, HOW much does it cost to get a president elected these days?
My own feeling is that electric cars and plug-in hybrids are a better solution than biofuels. But you know, it could go either way.
It better go both ways. And any others that appear. I seriously doubt a "best-of-breed" approach will work for everyone here.
Exisitng cars are only a problem for their owner.
It's happening already; my STUPID neighbor wouldn't listen to me, and bought an H3. He has not driven that beast in 6 months, continues to make payments (including insurance), and carpools to work in his co-worker's PRIUS!
Market forces will phase-out gas guzzlers. Because that is the only force on earth capable of compelling people to give them up. It won't be painless, but hey, nobody ever said that the Invisible Hand was always gentle, or used lube.
Heated up is NOT the only thing that you have to do to vegetable oil to make it work in a diesel engine.
You also MUST filter it, because particles and contaminants will mess up your engine.
AND - you MUST remove any water in the oil; because this also will destroy your engine (especially a turbo-diesel). Most vegetable oil contains significant quantities of water, and it's not all that easy (for the home-brewer) to remove. (this applies to both biodiesel and SVO burners).
I have heard many horror stories of people killing their engines on home-brew SVO and biodiesel. My local COMMERCIAL supplier (JB Dewar) has had to reject several recent batches due to poor quality control (ie. contaminants and water content).
Had the cell phones of the passengers on flight 93 been disabled by this technology, the passengers might not have learned of the hijackers' plans, and the hijackers might have succeeded in reaching their target. (speculated to have been Sears' Tower in Chicago, or possibly the US Capitol).
A scout is honest:
Therefore, a scout can not be a CLOSETED gay. They must be openly gay!
Not strictly true.
Leadership positions ARE required for advancement. There are Boy-Leadership positions (Senior Patrol Leader, Patrol Leader) - and there are Adult Leadership positions. (Boy Scouts who are over 18, who volunteer their time, though they can no longer advance to Eagle - there is an adult-equivalent advancement-track, but it's mainly just to keep bored dads engaged). It is the Adult Leadership positions that they're banned from - because there are specific requirements for activities, needing adult chaperones.
Now: the BSA's Youth Protection Training program (anti sex-abuse), if adhered to, should prevent any abuses that anyone might be afraid of, with a Gay Adult Leader. Including spurious lawsuits! So the restriction on gays as Adult Leaders is rooted more in bigotry than practical considerations.
For my part - I find it extremely valuable - for everyone involved, to have young men (18 or older, but not yet having kids of their own in scouting) volunteer as adult leaders. Keeping out gays from this function is actually pretty stupid. These are the guys who have the time to assist on all the campouts, supervise, and help provide skill training. (for what it's worth, our 18+ adult leaders know their knots cold: NONE of the dads know their knots!)
That's a good story, and a great lesson.
We can fight against bigotry all we want. It's an ideal.
But in reality, one will always encounter difficult people, including bigots. You can let them be a roadblock, or you can flow like water around these obstacles, and still get to where you want to go.