Getting burned out in one job can set you up for getting burned out in the next one as well. You become so happy that you aren't in your old job that you sign up for things and extra work in the new one because the new people/management are nice and you want to show how appreciative you are that you've with them and not in your old job, until you realize that you're back in the same type of situation: too much to do and not enough time/money to accomplish the tasks.
You can create a vicious cycle of burnout if you are not careful. You'll finally escape the old job with its overly demanding schedule and poor salary for a new job with a better salary and more reasonable task list. You're new job euphoria can put you in situations where you pick up extra work or some other duties because you're happy not to be in the old job and the manager at the new job wouldn't take advantage of you... You basically put yourself back into a burnout position grinding away until you find another new job with a better salary where you'll start out with more reasonable taskings, until you sign up for too much there too.
The several posts here that suggest you take care of yourself are dead on! Listen to them. When you're hired into a position, that's the role you play and only deviate from the role for extremely good reasons and only for temporary taskings.
Actually I agree with your original premise and would also like to see regulated journalistic standards. I have the same level of trust for self-policed professional bodies as I do for government officials and corporate officers.
The distinction between government granting rights versus human beings having rights that are not to be infringed is an important distinction that many people (even Americans) lose sight of.
Government owned and operated journalism seems to run counter to the 1st amendment, but I don't see anything wrong with legislating standard for journalistic quality. There are several parallels already, FDA ensure drugs and food are safe. FEC ensures elections are fair, why not a Federal agency to ensure news reports are factually accurate and that when mistakes are made corrections are issued?
PS the First Amendment is government intervention. Jeez.
No, your characterization of the Bill of Rights is flawed.
The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the actions of the government. It is not a granting of privileges to the citizenry. Free speech and free press are inalienable human rights that the government cannot prohibit.
How come Safari and Opera got left off the list? I know the Redmond answer already: they aren't popular enough and therefore aren't something a user would be interested in. Perhaps they aren't listed because they would skew the results away from IE8. Even if the results weren't skewed, leaving out other browsers leaves the door open for people to speculate why those browsers were left off the list.
Isn't Microsoft bribing people to use IE8 with that $10,000 scavenger hunt thing? I can see the scripting now... if (IE8) { runScam(noobUser); } else { showPage(); }
I wonder why the iPhone doesn't see more patches and updates. If the iPhone OS is a branch of Mac OS why isn't the phone patches as much as the desktop OS? Do Windows Mobile machines patch every Tuesday? I never updated my CrackBerry. Perhaps Apple doesn't want the iPhone to appear to need patches more often than it's competitors.
By cleaning up destitute neighborhoods you could raise adjoining property values and increase citizens' home equity and therefore increase their wealth.
Uncle Sam is going to do stupid things with our money, if he replaces crappy parts of town with green open spaces, we'll have a nicer view during our commute and maybe increase our home's value.
Letting the buildings rot and become havens for crime only benefits criminals.
That's very true. A lone tall building in an arboreal setting would be a destination for tourists. I had to go looking for Paul Revere's house in Boston and found it unceremoniously sandwiched between buildings in a downtown block.
With proper landscaping you could mitigate some of the wildfire risk. The government could charge for access to the historical sites, like they do for state parks, and use the funds for maintenance.
This seems like a win-win scenario. Construction companies get hired to demolish the old buildings, which stimulates the economy and if the right buildings get the axe, old run down buildings full of lead paint and asbestos insulation go away and are replaced with meadows, forests or new greener buildings.
The catch would be all the geezers coming out of the wood-work to save all the "historical sites"
Slashdot Mirror
Getting burned out in one job can set you up for getting burned out in the next one as well. You become so happy that you aren't in your old job that you sign up for things and extra work in the new one because the new people/management are nice and you want to show how appreciative you are that you've with them and not in your old job, until you realize that you're back in the same type of situation: too much to do and not enough time/money to accomplish the tasks.
You can create a vicious cycle of burnout if you are not careful. You'll finally escape the old job with its overly demanding schedule and poor salary for a new job with a better salary and more reasonable task list. You're new job euphoria can put you in situations where you pick up extra work or some other duties because you're happy not to be in the old job and the manager at the new job wouldn't take advantage of you... You basically put yourself back into a burnout position grinding away until you find another new job with a better salary where you'll start out with more reasonable taskings, until you sign up for too much there too. The several posts here that suggest you take care of yourself are dead on! Listen to them. When you're hired into a position, that's the role you play and only deviate from the role for extremely good reasons and only for temporary taskings.
Actually I agree with your original premise and would also like to see regulated journalistic standards. I have the same level of trust for self-policed professional bodies as I do for government officials and corporate officers. The distinction between government granting rights versus human beings having rights that are not to be infringed is an important distinction that many people (even Americans) lose sight of. Government owned and operated journalism seems to run counter to the 1st amendment, but I don't see anything wrong with legislating standard for journalistic quality. There are several parallels already, FDA ensure drugs and food are safe. FEC ensures elections are fair, why not a Federal agency to ensure news reports are factually accurate and that when mistakes are made corrections are issued?
PS the First Amendment is government intervention. Jeez.
No, your characterization of the Bill of Rights is flawed. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the actions of the government. It is not a granting of privileges to the citizenry. Free speech and free press are inalienable human rights that the government cannot prohibit.
How come Safari and Opera got left off the list? I know the Redmond answer already: they aren't popular enough and therefore aren't something a user would be interested in. Perhaps they aren't listed because they would skew the results away from IE8. Even if the results weren't skewed, leaving out other browsers leaves the door open for people to speculate why those browsers were left off the list. Isn't Microsoft bribing people to use IE8 with that $10,000 scavenger hunt thing? I can see the scripting now... if (IE8) { runScam(noobUser); } else { showPage(); }
I wonder why the iPhone doesn't see more patches and updates. If the iPhone OS is a branch of Mac OS why isn't the phone patches as much as the desktop OS? Do Windows Mobile machines patch every Tuesday? I never updated my CrackBerry. Perhaps Apple doesn't want the iPhone to appear to need patches more often than it's competitors.
By cleaning up destitute neighborhoods you could raise adjoining property values and increase citizens' home equity and therefore increase their wealth. Uncle Sam is going to do stupid things with our money, if he replaces crappy parts of town with green open spaces, we'll have a nicer view during our commute and maybe increase our home's value. Letting the buildings rot and become havens for crime only benefits criminals.
That's very true. A lone tall building in an arboreal setting would be a destination for tourists. I had to go looking for Paul Revere's house in Boston and found it unceremoniously sandwiched between buildings in a downtown block. With proper landscaping you could mitigate some of the wildfire risk. The government could charge for access to the historical sites, like they do for state parks, and use the funds for maintenance.
This seems like a win-win scenario. Construction companies get hired to demolish the old buildings, which stimulates the economy and if the right buildings get the axe, old run down buildings full of lead paint and asbestos insulation go away and are replaced with meadows, forests or new greener buildings. The catch would be all the geezers coming out of the wood-work to save all the "historical sites"