I generally agree with you, but I do think it is a serious issue.
Releasing tax returns is just a show of good faith and trust. Nobody cares how much Bill Clinton bought/sold a boat for in 1986. If Mr. Romney decides to forgo that, then that is his choice, but I think it shows a serious misjudgement. He thinks the public knowing that he made 10 million dollars, instead of only 5 million dollars, or used accounting trick "x" to lower his tax bill in 2002 will get people riled up. But I don't really give a damn about his finances, or legal loopholes he may have jumped through. I expect most people don't. On this type of issue, people are generally forgiving as long as it appears everything is more or less on the up-and-up, and no laws were openly flaunted.
The nation isn't going to be shocked to find out he made millions of dollars each year, or may have paid less tax (by %) than most. We already know that. The issue is that, while he is asking the people for unparalleled power, he doesn't trust the people enough to look at them all in the eye and say, "Here is who I am. You should know everything about me before you entrust this power in me. I may be wealthy, but I am an upstanding citizen just like you." If he gets criticized for paying too little in tax, he can just say "I followed the same rules as you, and came out ahead. What you don't like is the ruleset. I'm a politician, we can talk about that."
He refuses to do that. It's his right, but I do think it is a major flaw.
But for an entirely different reason. I simply like not having it around sometimes. It forces me to have a distinct plan when I leave the house. I must know exactly where I am going, who I am meeting, what I am buying from the store, etc. Minor issues, for sure, but the psychological impact is important. I immediately feel "off the grid" somewhat, and it provides a nice freedom. Never had an "emergency" that was so important it didn't wait till I got back.
Security/privacy is a real issue, but I don't see how taking it to the store/not taking it to the store makes any real difference. So they know you went to the store/movies? I'm not really okay with that, but stop and think about it for a moment. Whether or not you took it with you, they could probably gather most of the same info from your texts and phone calls anyhow. So unless you never use your cell phone to make any plans, and never take it with you anywhere, they can pretty well figure out what you are up to. If you are that paranoid, you should be primarily communicating by carrier pigeon. As a corollary, if you use your cell phone to make plans to do something illegal, you're an idiot.
Wow, lots of company here. I was obsessed by outer spaceas a kid. I knew all about pulsars, black holes, dark matter, different classes of galaxies, planets, stars, etc, by the age of 12. Then I went to a Christian summer camp, where one of the counselors actually told me that all of that was malarkey. I remember insisting that there were in fact other galaxies, that you could see them with a telescope, and the counselor responded, "There are holes in all of those theories the size of this cabin". Dude dIdn't even believe the other stars were just like our sun, just far away. I don't know what he thought the stars were, but no doubt it was one of two ideas: God put them there for decoration, or Satan put them there to confuse us. That's what he said dinosaur bones were. They were put there by Satan, who is trying to confuse us.
I wish I made any of that up, because that was tough to deal with at age 12, when isolated from my parents/teachers. I would sleep better at night if I didn't know such willfully ignorant people existed. Watch the movie "Jesus Camp", and know that those people/places are real, and some parents (like mine) will send their kid off to camp, not realizing the full extent of the lunacy they are subjecting their children to. Farked me up good for a little while. (Didn't go to that exact camp, but it wasn't much different)
It wasn't a technical article... It's mostly an opinion piece. I think the author very effectively used the somewhat juvenile connotation to convey how silly she thinks the whole deal is.
Agree with that thesis or not, but it's not bad writing.
I guess it's not too much of a consideration anymore, but I still drive a stick. Talking on a cell phone is markedly dangerous for me, at least in the city. An open highway is alright though.
I left a job once, and the exit interviw was a word document that they requested back. I filled it out, and was honest. Some good, but some pointed bad. I left voluntarily for a lower paying gig, so obviously I had a couple issues with them.
Anyways, I emailed it back to my boss, who then forwarded it to HR, and upper management. He cc'ed me on it. I happened to download the attachment, and realized he had editted most of what I said. So yeah, I go with pointless.
This is why I finally got around to deleting my account. I've had an account for 8 years. I graduated college, and it was just a place to keep track of what my college buddies were up to, but I pretty much stopped using it. Then, they opened it to the public and I started getting emails from all kinds of people "friending" me that I hadn't heard from in years. I started logging in and actively resetting my security/privacy settings every 6 months or so because facebook changed them without my approval. Still, it was alright, because it was a nice convenient place I could go if I forgot when my Aunt's birthday was, or wanted to get my cousin's/old friend's current email address, etc. A glorified rolodex.
But the email thing. That was the last straw. I had my email set up as private. Only friends could see it, and mainly it was for me to give out my latest contact info to family/friends. Then they removed my visible email address, and put up a new one without notifying me. I had also just lost access to viable email addresses from friends and family as well, because it only shows their facebook one, and most aren't proactive enough to change it back. It shocks me still that they set up email in the way they did. It's just your account number/username@facebook. So now, essentially, my email was now global, when I did not want it available to anyone but my friends. I finally realized they really, truly, did not give a shit. Should have realized it years ago, but I guess I'm a slow learner.
Let me just ask, because there seems to be an inconsistency in thought here. Do you support the free education for advanced technical degrees for foreigners? Because, if you do, I have to ask... why would you knowingly and willingly do that, and then send them home? Spend maybe 150k on their advanced education, and then send them home to innovate in their home countries? You do know this entire article is about the SHORTAGE in American scientists and engineers, right?
If you are against their very education, then at least I would consider your argument consistent, if xenophobic.
Foreign students go home because a student visa does not allow them to work here They have about 6 months after graduation to find a job, get a green card, and become a permanent resident. I have personally known a great many people graduating with advanced degrees in engineering and science who were sent home because they didn't have their whole life in order within 6 months of graduating. A lot of those did not really want to leave. We make it unnecesarily hard.
As a side note, a great deal of those students get their education paid for by NSF or NIH grant money from professors that hire them. Or some other AMERICAN agency, such as the AHA, ACS, etc, etc. Your charitable contribuitons and tax dollars educate them, and then policy tells them they aren't welcome here and they should really go home. As the GP said, "YAY".
Not every person on Aderall is a 2nd grader. I am an adult with ADHD, and I wasn't diagnosed until my second year toward getting a Ph.D. Aderall is a powerful drug, and I hope someday there will be a treatment that doesn't require me to take amphetamines. I always think about 100 years ago when cough syrup had opium in it. I'm sure it's a hell of a cough suppresant, but damn if it isn't overkill. Maybe with more research there will someday be something better for us ADDers.
I don't disagree that ADHD is probably over-diagnosed. The symptoms can easily mistaken for laziness or general immaturity, and with kids it can be particularly difficult to get it right. There is a stunning lack of counseling ADHD children on how to deal with their symptoms. I wish someone had talked to me candidly about why I didn't fit in, why I literally couldn't sit still, always got in trouble, etc. Might not have helped my behavior much but it may have saved me some years of anguish wondering why I couldn't get it together. I got bad grades in Middle School, but I was smart, and grasped the material just fine. I just didn't do any homework. I know. All kids hate homework and blow it off now and then. Not me. I just didn't do it. Period. Couldn't, and I didn't understand how anybody else did. It was not normal. The only reason I passed most classes was that I would cheat in middle school. We'd often "exchange papers" to grade each other in 6-7th grade or so. I would keep my own, had a red pen filled with black ink, and just filedl in the answers when they were called out. I did this in one class or another almost every day. That's right. I cheated my way through 6th grade. Like I said, not normal.
I do sympathize with your perspective. In most cases, I think medication should wait until kids are a little older and their grades actually matter. Make sure kids who have strong symptoms early on know what is happenning and why, and let the teachers know too. Then, maybe in high school start medication if it is necessary. The logistics alone are awful for dosing a kid properly with a highly psychoactive chemical. A kid's metabolism changes monthly, and their mass may double in three years. And I think it's important to let a kid explore their own native psyche, regardless of whether it is a "normal" psyche.
To work as a professional, I rely on Aderall. Some might call me a junkie, based on my steep performance drop-off when I go unmedicated. I assure you, this isn't withdrawal and addiction. I don't even want to take the pills. I won't take them on weekends, vacations, or holidays, and I don't suffer any physical ill-effects for it. What happens when I don't is a return of my normal everyday symptoms. The shortages in supply, whatever the cause, are very real, and it is REALLY frustrating to call about 5-6 pharmacies to see if they can fill my prescription every month. Sometimes I just have to wait, and I quite frankly have better htings to do than call pharmacies all afternoon and drive halfway across the county to get my prescription only mostly filled, because they were down to their last 40 pills at the pharmacy
Hope I don't come off as obtuse or anything. I encounter a lot of people that think ADHD is a made-up disorder and there's no legitimate reason to take medication. I don't think you fall into this category, but I am sure there are some reading who do. Just trying to spread the word.
I beg to differ. I bet Steve Jobs had passion and wanted to build a nice, affordable, and usable computer. He made a nice product, and the money came naturally. Too many people try to make money, with product as an afterthought, or without passion. This is what separates great companies from mediocre/crappy ones.
I'm not the poster you responded to, but just fyi: The hellhole I've been in WAS a privately rented apartment in a shiatty neighborhood. Stabbings, muggings, prostitution, etc. It's not just for the projects! In fact, not even all cities or states HAVE projects, and yet these things happen everywhere... funny how that works!
As someone who has been quite poor, let me tell you: It sucks. It really sucks. And you think the state is so helpful, and is just so willing to give you everything you need to survive, and then some. They're not. It's a demoralizing process to get on food stamps. And try getting sick! Jesus, that's fun not getting to go to a normal doctor! You're blaming the poor saying that this country is going broke because we begrudgingly don't let our weakest members starve to death. The poor might have a bare-bones crappy apartment with a shared twin bed for the kids, but hey! They have an xbox! Let's string them up and kick them off the dole! They can sell that for 200 bucks, and then what? A few weeks of groceries (or less if we're talking about a family) and that's it. Back to square one. An xbox is not a large asset. A not-so-wise investment from someone with limited funds, but who are you to judge? Your opinion is that someone isn't really poor, or in need of any assistance until they have absolutely NO assets? NO means of diversion from the unholy hell they live in day-to-day? You need a reality check. You need to see someone get stabbed in your front yard. You need to get propositioned by a prostitute in front of your house. You need to be reliably woken up by sirens and noisy neighbors doing god-knows-what several times a week. Then tell me a diversion like an xbox isn't a reasonable investment. It sure beats drugs.
Mod up as Truth! I wanted to add that I also think there are lots of places we can cut the budget in enormous ways, but taking money from grandma and teachers isn't really the go-to solution. The fact that we can supposedly tax the wealthy at 100% and not make up the difference in the deficit is very telling, and dramatic restructuring is necessary. But that's not a reason for them not to help in a time of crisis, to a country that has allowed them to reap great reward. And that's exactly what the last couple of years have been. A slow-motion national crisis that, unsolved, threatens everyone's financial security, even the rich. I am in the bottom tax bracket, and can barely scrape by as it is. If they raise my taxes, it will hurt, but at least I'll know why. As long as I think they are working in good faith to restore sanity, I'll be okay with it. But I'll be goddamned if they raise them and continue to increase spending on petty wars and ballooning fraudulent medicare claims. Just insanity.
Interesting ideas. You haven't totally won me over, but I appreciate your point of view. Thanks for sharing. And someone beat me to it, but we are definitely "graded" on our slashdot posts!:)
I actually agree with a fair number of your points, and don't believe that grades tell the whole story of what someone got out of a class. I think it can be arbitrary, and at it's worst can instill hostilities amongst the students rather than a sense of camaraderie. Case in point: Once I had a solid A going into a final exam. The final was cumulative, and although I had studied well, I had a fever and could hardly focus on anything. I failed the final miserably. It was weighted as 50% of our grade, so I ended up with a C in the class. That wasn't really a fair or accurate picture of my understanding of the material, but it also isn't fair to the other students if I get to take it at a separate time. That's just the way it goes sometimes. But do you really think that there should be NO judgement by the teacher/instructor that conveys how well you understand the material?
I think most people have experienced an issue with biased professors, unfair grading schemes, or just bad luck when it comes to grades. Just read the above comments and you'll see many examples of it. I also think that most people have a general understanding that grades aren't the whole story, and use them only loosely when making hiring decisions/admissions decisions, etc. Personal recommendations from instructors, however, are worth their weight in gold. If you are a hiring manager, and a young applicant has excellent recommendations from their college professors, and generally made good grades on their transcript, don't you think that conveys a sense that this person probably has a handle on the material he/she was studying in college? Even if they got a C in an important class or two? I suppose what I am saying is that while all of the above points you make can be true, it's often the students themselves who make it out to be like that. Grades aren't supposed to be a 100% reliable analysis of how someone understands a class, it's a general guide that only makes sense when taken with many other factors. If students take them too seriously, then all hell breaks loose. But the solution isn't to stop evaluating.
Not looking to be contrarian, I'm actually interested in what you think.
I took my one year old nephew to a playground in my neighborhood, and as soon as I set him down he crawled up to the very top of the biggest slide and flung himself down it headfirst. Nobody was there to catch him and he did a nice faceplant in the sand at the bottom. He was fine. Cried for a minute, had a bunch of sand in his nose, but then calmed down and crawled back up and did it again (with me waiting to catch him this time). From then on, he was a little bit more cautious and wouldn't go down unless I was there waiting.
Hell, Boise City, Oklahoma has one in it's downtown area, and the town hall is in the center of it. It's pretty cool, and probably at least 100 years old. Not sure where they got their 1990 number from...
I've always thought this whole issue of "just world" notion is moot in FPS anyways. Doom and Wolfenstein enhance the issues by presenting you with an enemy that is hardly human anyways, but in every FPS I've ever played, and also in the Grand Theft series, you get over it really quickly because the enemy will fight you once he sees you, and in a predictable way. It's literally kill or be killed, with no room for any other tactic, thus justifying the brutality.
I think it would be a really interesting concept for a game to allow for more options. I guess it doesn't fit well with games that are more of total war simulators, but perhaps for games more like Godfather, GTA, or Bully, you could start conversations with opposing gang members rather than have them immediately fight you. You could potentially bribe them, befriend them, etc, even if your groups are at war. Obviously walking into a crowded room of them would have to be pre-programmed fighting, but even then it might have a different dynamic if say, you have a friend in the room. He might quietly leave instead of fight, and take another guy with him, thus making your mission a little easier.
I would argue that science is more of a process; a systematic method to understand things. My trust or belief in a certain theory of plate tectonics, or quantum mechanics, or anything else might be loosely described as faith. But it's faith due to a scientific process which has shown demonstrably that the theory is true, so far as we can tell. The great thing about science? If someone else comes along, and says, "You're wrong. I found out another explanation that makes more sense", then I change my beliefs. It doesn't happen like that in religious realms.
Also, any good scientist is not afraid to say, "I don't know". Faith and belief systems that are unfounded in the real world offer up all kinds of crazy explanations for things they don't understand.
This sounds like a great idea in theory. And in theory I agree. But you have to remember that junk food is usually artificially cheap. The government gives such an enormous subsidy to corn farmers and are largely the ones responsible for the overabundance of cheap-corn syrupy products. So to me, subsidizing it on one end and taxing it on the other seems like textbook over-governing. Take some subsidies out, watch corn prices go up, see soda and candy bars get more expensive. End of problem. But that won't happen.
I played devil's advocate, but it still doesn't hold water. Let's suppose you are mad at someone and say something stupid on facebook like "$500 dollars to whoever takes this girl out". Okay. That's stupid, but it's defensible that maybe you aren't serious. Now, an undercover cop responds to your ad, and wants to arrange a meeting. (Which happened if you read the article) If your ad is not serious, and you don't actually want someone MURDERED in cold blood, and someone is there offering to MURDER someone for you... You're response to the would-be assassin should be nothing less than "Yo, please don't actually kill her, I was only joking", followed by an immediate removal of the facetious ads. He didn't do that. He didn't meet with the undercover cop, but he seemingly didn't give anybody any reason to think he was joking.
It's possible that it was drunken consensual sex, and the aftermath got out of hand. But in my mind, even if that's the case... He's still guilty of trying to hire someone to kill her. He made his own bed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're looking for "How William Shatner Changed the World", hosted by William Shatner.
No, really, I think that's it.
I generally agree with you, but I do think it is a serious issue.
Releasing tax returns is just a show of good faith and trust. Nobody cares how much Bill Clinton bought/sold a boat for in 1986. If Mr. Romney decides to forgo that, then that is his choice, but I think it shows a serious misjudgement. He thinks the public knowing that he made 10 million dollars, instead of only 5 million dollars, or used accounting trick "x" to lower his tax bill in 2002 will get people riled up. But I don't really give a damn about his finances, or legal loopholes he may have jumped through. I expect most people don't. On this type of issue, people are generally forgiving as long as it appears everything is more or less on the up-and-up, and no laws were openly flaunted.
The nation isn't going to be shocked to find out he made millions of dollars each year, or may have paid less tax (by %) than most. We already know that. The issue is that, while he is asking the people for unparalleled power, he doesn't trust the people enough to look at them all in the eye and say, "Here is who I am. You should know everything about me before you entrust this power in me. I may be wealthy, but I am an upstanding citizen just like you." If he gets criticized for paying too little in tax, he can just say "I followed the same rules as you, and came out ahead. What you don't like is the ruleset. I'm a politician, we can talk about that."
He refuses to do that. It's his right, but I do think it is a major flaw.
But for an entirely different reason. I simply like not having it around sometimes. It forces me to have a distinct plan when I leave the house. I must know exactly where I am going, who I am meeting, what I am buying from the store, etc. Minor issues, for sure, but the psychological impact is important. I immediately feel "off the grid" somewhat, and it provides a nice freedom. Never had an "emergency" that was so important it didn't wait till I got back.
Security/privacy is a real issue, but I don't see how taking it to the store/not taking it to the store makes any real difference. So they know you went to the store/movies? I'm not really okay with that, but stop and think about it for a moment. Whether or not you took it with you, they could probably gather most of the same info from your texts and phone calls anyhow. So unless you never use your cell phone to make any plans, and never take it with you anywhere, they can pretty well figure out what you are up to. If you are that paranoid, you should be primarily communicating by carrier pigeon. As a corollary, if you use your cell phone to make plans to do something illegal, you're an idiot.
Wow, lots of company here. I was obsessed by outer spaceas a kid. I knew all about pulsars, black holes, dark matter, different classes of galaxies, planets, stars, etc, by the age of 12. Then I went to a Christian summer camp, where one of the counselors actually told me that all of that was malarkey. I remember insisting that there were in fact other galaxies, that you could see them with a telescope, and the counselor responded, "There are holes in all of those theories the size of this cabin". Dude dIdn't even believe the other stars were just like our sun, just far away. I don't know what he thought the stars were, but no doubt it was one of two ideas: God put them there for decoration, or Satan put them there to confuse us. That's what he said dinosaur bones were. They were put there by Satan, who is trying to confuse us.
I wish I made any of that up, because that was tough to deal with at age 12, when isolated from my parents/teachers. I would sleep better at night if I didn't know such willfully ignorant people existed. Watch the movie "Jesus Camp", and know that those people/places are real, and some parents (like mine) will send their kid off to camp, not realizing the full extent of the lunacy they are subjecting their children to. Farked me up good for a little while. (Didn't go to that exact camp, but it wasn't much different)
It wasn't a technical article... It's mostly an opinion piece. I think the author very effectively used the somewhat juvenile connotation to convey how silly she thinks the whole deal is.
Agree with that thesis or not, but it's not bad writing.
I guess it's not too much of a consideration anymore, but I still drive a stick. Talking on a cell phone is markedly dangerous for me, at least in the city. An open highway is alright though.
I left a job once, and the exit interviw was a word document that they requested back. I filled it out, and was honest. Some good, but some pointed bad. I left voluntarily for a lower paying gig, so obviously I had a couple issues with them.
Anyways, I emailed it back to my boss, who then forwarded it to HR, and upper management. He cc'ed me on it. I happened to download the attachment, and realized he had editted most of what I said. So yeah, I go with pointless.
THIS!
This is why I finally got around to deleting my account. I've had an account for 8 years. I graduated college, and it was just a place to keep track of what my college buddies were up to, but I pretty much stopped using it. Then, they opened it to the public and I started getting emails from all kinds of people "friending" me that I hadn't heard from in years. I started logging in and actively resetting my security/privacy settings every 6 months or so because facebook changed them without my approval. Still, it was alright, because it was a nice convenient place I could go if I forgot when my Aunt's birthday was, or wanted to get my cousin's/old friend's current email address, etc. A glorified rolodex.
But the email thing. That was the last straw. I had my email set up as private. Only friends could see it, and mainly it was for me to give out my latest contact info to family/friends. Then they removed my visible email address, and put up a new one without notifying me. I had also just lost access to viable email addresses from friends and family as well, because it only shows their facebook one, and most aren't proactive enough to change it back. It shocks me still that they set up email in the way they did. It's just your account number/username@facebook. So now, essentially, my email was now global, when I did not want it available to anyone but my friends. I finally realized they really, truly, did not give a shit. Should have realized it years ago, but I guess I'm a slow learner.
Let me just ask, because there seems to be an inconsistency in thought here. Do you support the free education for advanced technical degrees for foreigners? Because, if you do, I have to ask... why would you knowingly and willingly do that, and then send them home? Spend maybe 150k on their advanced education, and then send them home to innovate in their home countries? You do know this entire article is about the SHORTAGE in American scientists and engineers, right?
If you are against their very education, then at least I would consider your argument consistent, if xenophobic.
Foreign students go home because a student visa does not allow them to work here They have about 6 months after graduation to find a job, get a green card, and become a permanent resident. I have personally known a great many people graduating with advanced degrees in engineering and science who were sent home because they didn't have their whole life in order within 6 months of graduating. A lot of those did not really want to leave. We make it unnecesarily hard.
As a side note, a great deal of those students get their education paid for by NSF or NIH grant money from professors that hire them. Or some other AMERICAN agency, such as the AHA, ACS, etc, etc. Your charitable contribuitons and tax dollars educate them, and then policy tells them they aren't welcome here and they should really go home. As the GP said, "YAY".
Not every person on Aderall is a 2nd grader. I am an adult with ADHD, and I wasn't diagnosed until my second year toward getting a Ph.D. Aderall is a powerful drug, and I hope someday there will be a treatment that doesn't require me to take amphetamines. I always think about 100 years ago when cough syrup had opium in it. I'm sure it's a hell of a cough suppresant, but damn if it isn't overkill. Maybe with more research there will someday be something better for us ADDers.
I don't disagree that ADHD is probably over-diagnosed. The symptoms can easily mistaken for laziness or general immaturity, and with kids it can be particularly difficult to get it right. There is a stunning lack of counseling ADHD children on how to deal with their symptoms. I wish someone had talked to me candidly about why I didn't fit in, why I literally couldn't sit still, always got in trouble, etc. Might not have helped my behavior much but it may have saved me some years of anguish wondering why I couldn't get it together. I got bad grades in Middle School, but I was smart, and grasped the material just fine. I just didn't do any homework. I know. All kids hate homework and blow it off now and then. Not me. I just didn't do it. Period. Couldn't, and I didn't understand how anybody else did. It was not normal. The only reason I passed most classes was that I would cheat in middle school. We'd often "exchange papers" to grade each other in 6-7th grade or so. I would keep my own, had a red pen filled with black ink, and just filedl in the answers when they were called out. I did this in one class or another almost every day. That's right. I cheated my way through 6th grade. Like I said, not normal.
I do sympathize with your perspective. In most cases, I think medication should wait until kids are a little older and their grades actually matter. Make sure kids who have strong symptoms early on know what is happenning and why, and let the teachers know too. Then, maybe in high school start medication if it is necessary. The logistics alone are awful for dosing a kid properly with a highly psychoactive chemical. A kid's metabolism changes monthly, and their mass may double in three years. And I think it's important to let a kid explore their own native psyche, regardless of whether it is a "normal" psyche.
To work as a professional, I rely on Aderall. Some might call me a junkie, based on my steep performance drop-off when I go unmedicated. I assure you, this isn't withdrawal and addiction. I don't even want to take the pills. I won't take them on weekends, vacations, or holidays, and I don't suffer any physical ill-effects for it. What happens when I don't is a return of my normal everyday symptoms. The shortages in supply, whatever the cause, are very real, and it is REALLY frustrating to call about 5-6 pharmacies to see if they can fill my prescription every month. Sometimes I just have to wait, and I quite frankly have better htings to do than call pharmacies all afternoon and drive halfway across the county to get my prescription only mostly filled, because they were down to their last 40 pills at the pharmacy
Hope I don't come off as obtuse or anything. I encounter a lot of people that think ADHD is a made-up disorder and there's no legitimate reason to take medication. I don't think you fall into this category, but I am sure there are some reading who do. Just trying to spread the word.
On that I think we are in 100% agreement. Well put.
I beg to differ. I bet Steve Jobs had passion and wanted to build a nice, affordable, and usable computer. He made a nice product, and the money came naturally. Too many people try to make money, with product as an afterthought, or without passion. This is what separates great companies from mediocre/crappy ones.
I'm not the poster you responded to, but just fyi: The hellhole I've been in WAS a privately rented apartment in a shiatty neighborhood. Stabbings, muggings, prostitution, etc. It's not just for the projects! In fact, not even all cities or states HAVE projects, and yet these things happen everywhere... funny how that works!
As someone who has been quite poor, let me tell you: It sucks. It really sucks. And you think the state is so helpful, and is just so willing to give you everything you need to survive, and then some. They're not. It's a demoralizing process to get on food stamps. And try getting sick! Jesus, that's fun not getting to go to a normal doctor! You're blaming the poor saying that this country is going broke because we begrudgingly don't let our weakest members starve to death. The poor might have a bare-bones crappy apartment with a shared twin bed for the kids, but hey! They have an xbox! Let's string them up and kick them off the dole! They can sell that for 200 bucks, and then what? A few weeks of groceries (or less if we're talking about a family) and that's it. Back to square one. An xbox is not a large asset. A not-so-wise investment from someone with limited funds, but who are you to judge? Your opinion is that someone isn't really poor, or in need of any assistance until they have absolutely NO assets? NO means of diversion from the unholy hell they live in day-to-day? You need a reality check. You need to see someone get stabbed in your front yard. You need to get propositioned by a prostitute in front of your house. You need to be reliably woken up by sirens and noisy neighbors doing god-knows-what several times a week. Then tell me a diversion like an xbox isn't a reasonable investment. It sure beats drugs.
Mod up as Truth! I wanted to add that I also think there are lots of places we can cut the budget in enormous ways, but taking money from grandma and teachers isn't really the go-to solution. The fact that we can supposedly tax the wealthy at 100% and not make up the difference in the deficit is very telling, and dramatic restructuring is necessary. But that's not a reason for them not to help in a time of crisis, to a country that has allowed them to reap great reward. And that's exactly what the last couple of years have been. A slow-motion national crisis that, unsolved, threatens everyone's financial security, even the rich. I am in the bottom tax bracket, and can barely scrape by as it is. If they raise my taxes, it will hurt, but at least I'll know why. As long as I think they are working in good faith to restore sanity, I'll be okay with it. But I'll be goddamned if they raise them and continue to increase spending on petty wars and ballooning fraudulent medicare claims. Just insanity.
Interesting ideas. You haven't totally won me over, but I appreciate your point of view. Thanks for sharing. And someone beat me to it, but we are definitely "graded" on our slashdot posts! :)
I actually agree with a fair number of your points, and don't believe that grades tell the whole story of what someone got out of a class. I think it can be arbitrary, and at it's worst can instill hostilities amongst the students rather than a sense of camaraderie. Case in point: Once I had a solid A going into a final exam. The final was cumulative, and although I had studied well, I had a fever and could hardly focus on anything. I failed the final miserably. It was weighted as 50% of our grade, so I ended up with a C in the class. That wasn't really a fair or accurate picture of my understanding of the material, but it also isn't fair to the other students if I get to take it at a separate time. That's just the way it goes sometimes. But do you really think that there should be NO judgement by the teacher/instructor that conveys how well you understand the material?
I think most people have experienced an issue with biased professors, unfair grading schemes, or just bad luck when it comes to grades. Just read the above comments and you'll see many examples of it. I also think that most people have a general understanding that grades aren't the whole story, and use them only loosely when making hiring decisions/admissions decisions, etc. Personal recommendations from instructors, however, are worth their weight in gold. If you are a hiring manager, and a young applicant has excellent recommendations from their college professors, and generally made good grades on their transcript, don't you think that conveys a sense that this person probably has a handle on the material he/she was studying in college? Even if they got a C in an important class or two? I suppose what I am saying is that while all of the above points you make can be true, it's often the students themselves who make it out to be like that. Grades aren't supposed to be a 100% reliable analysis of how someone understands a class, it's a general guide that only makes sense when taken with many other factors. If students take them too seriously, then all hell breaks loose. But the solution isn't to stop evaluating.
Not looking to be contrarian, I'm actually interested in what you think.
I took my one year old nephew to a playground in my neighborhood, and as soon as I set him down he crawled up to the very top of the biggest slide and flung himself down it headfirst. Nobody was there to catch him and he did a nice faceplant in the sand at the bottom. He was fine. Cried for a minute, had a bunch of sand in his nose, but then calmed down and crawled back up and did it again (with me waiting to catch him this time). From then on, he was a little bit more cautious and wouldn't go down unless I was there waiting.
Do not follow link. NSFW. NSF anyone or anything.... Mod parent down as troll.
Hell, Boise City, Oklahoma has one in it's downtown area, and the town hall is in the center of it. It's pretty cool, and probably at least 100 years old. Not sure where they got their 1990 number from...
I've always thought this whole issue of "just world" notion is moot in FPS anyways. Doom and Wolfenstein enhance the issues by presenting you with an enemy that is hardly human anyways, but in every FPS I've ever played, and also in the Grand Theft series, you get over it really quickly because the enemy will fight you once he sees you, and in a predictable way. It's literally kill or be killed, with no room for any other tactic, thus justifying the brutality.
I think it would be a really interesting concept for a game to allow for more options. I guess it doesn't fit well with games that are more of total war simulators, but perhaps for games more like Godfather, GTA, or Bully, you could start conversations with opposing gang members rather than have them immediately fight you. You could potentially bribe them, befriend them, etc, even if your groups are at war. Obviously walking into a crowded room of them would have to be pre-programmed fighting, but even then it might have a different dynamic if say, you have a friend in the room. He might quietly leave instead of fight, and take another guy with him, thus making your mission a little easier.
I would argue that science is more of a process; a systematic method to understand things. My trust or belief in a certain theory of plate tectonics, or quantum mechanics, or anything else might be loosely described as faith. But it's faith due to a scientific process which has shown demonstrably that the theory is true, so far as we can tell. The great thing about science? If someone else comes along, and says, "You're wrong. I found out another explanation that makes more sense", then I change my beliefs. It doesn't happen like that in religious realms.
Also, any good scientist is not afraid to say, "I don't know". Faith and belief systems that are unfounded in the real world offer up all kinds of crazy explanations for things they don't understand.
This sounds like a great idea in theory. And in theory I agree. But you have to remember that junk food is usually artificially cheap. The government gives such an enormous subsidy to corn farmers and are largely the ones responsible for the overabundance of cheap-corn syrupy products. So to me, subsidizing it on one end and taxing it on the other seems like textbook over-governing. Take some subsidies out, watch corn prices go up, see soda and candy bars get more expensive. End of problem. But that won't happen.
I played devil's advocate, but it still doesn't hold water. Let's suppose you are mad at someone and say something stupid on facebook like "$500 dollars to whoever takes this girl out". Okay. That's stupid, but it's defensible that maybe you aren't serious. Now, an undercover cop responds to your ad, and wants to arrange a meeting. (Which happened if you read the article) If your ad is not serious, and you don't actually want someone MURDERED in cold blood, and someone is there offering to MURDER someone for you... You're response to the would-be assassin should be nothing less than "Yo, please don't actually kill her, I was only joking", followed by an immediate removal of the facetious ads. He didn't do that. He didn't meet with the undercover cop, but he seemingly didn't give anybody any reason to think he was joking.
It's possible that it was drunken consensual sex, and the aftermath got out of hand. But in my mind, even if that's the case... He's still guilty of trying to hire someone to kill her. He made his own bed.