You mean the threat that some self-righteous person can lie and manipulate his fellow workers into risking their jobs and livelihoods just so the self-righteous person can get some attention?? That if someone at work asks you to do something that isn't following procedure that you probably shouldn't do it because you could lose your job for someone that doesn't give a crap about you and will just flee the country and leave you hanging in the wind??
I hope so, maybe we can stop more security leaks.
Because the last time I checked... nothing has changed. Other than Snowden getting far more press coverage than he deserves.
Or will Sony be brave enough to paint the entire picture rather than just try and create a feel-good movie about an underdog by only presenting the facts that help them get the best ratings instead of presenting a balanced viewpoint?
Probably.. that's what most documentaries do. Al Gore and Michael Moore are masters of that, I wonder if Sony will hire them.
Maybe not, but 2 years of trade school coupled with 2 years of having a real job is far more experience than someone will ever get in college. I'll take the 2 year trade school person who was smart enough to figure out that they can spend 2 years in a trade school for far less money and come out with the skills necessary to start work, than someone so stupid they spend 4 years in college, rack up tons of debt, only to gain a few more hours of lab time, get useless credits in useless subjects, and some questionable theory that will probably be out of date in 4-5 years anyway when the NBT becomes the craze.
College can't teach someone how to be a programmer, it can only teach the syntax and theory to become a coder. Only experience and aptitude can make someone a programmer.
But, on the other hand, if someone has been coding for 10 years and the only language they know is PHP, maybe they aren't that smart to begin with. During my first 5 years of working with computers, I learned two different assemblers, FORTRAN, BASIC, and COBOL. Over the years I've added even more as I've needed to. No college in the world is going to teach someone that many different languages. On working in the real world and stepping up when needed can.
So.. can I do this in my motorcycle also then?? I'll save gas and time also. I hate stopping at stop signs and having to actually put my foot down, it takes so much extra energy. And why can't I just roll through a stop light if no one is coming, I can see traffic perfectly well and shouldn't have to stop if I judge that it's safe.
Just like a cyclist.. trying to justify a special rule just for them because they are too freakin' lazy to take their foot out of their clips. Or don't know how to balance a bike.
Tell you what.. when you can get all the asshole cyclists (I'm specifying a specific subgroup of all cyclists that think they own the road, not the polite ones that know how to share the road) to ride in their special bike lane single file so cars don't have to swerve around them, or just to ride single file anywhere there is traffic, and to not ride past lines of traffic on the the right, putting themselves at risk just to blow through a stop light, maybe I'll think about it. But I see cyclists every week who put themselves into situations that are far more risky than what this law is asking for. Mostly because it appears they think that just because the law supports them, they can bleeding well do just about anything they want to, no matter how inconsiderate and risky it is.
Nope.. I can't support giving cyclists special rights just because they are too lazy to put their foot down at a stop sign.
Either you pay for the lines feeding your house, or you only get wholesale rates for your power. My water bill is that way, I pay a flat monthly fee, plus an additional cost for water. I don't see anyone whining about the poor being affected.
If someone with solar doesn't like it, they can go to a completely self-contained system with batteries that doesn't feed anything back.
Government subsidies create unfair marketing systems that artificially reduce one cost while moving it somewhere else and hiding it. In the US, we pay lower prices for food because of agriculture subsidies. But, in the end. we still pay the 'real' cost because of increases in taxes. Plus all of the administrative overhead that goes into managing the subsidies. Better to eliminate the subsidies, lower the taxes, and let the market set the prices. If the government then needs to supplement the food stamp system, it can do that.
Plus, subsidies seem to never go away. Some special-interest lobbying group somewhere manages to present biased statistics 'proving' that the subsidies are still needed.
Those 80% are simply parroting back what the government and various anti-smoking groups flood every source of media with. They don't have to understand science to parrot something back. Some do, but most don't.
Besides, saying smoking causes cancer is a lie. Or at best a less-than-accurate statement. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Smoking increases the risk of cancer. People have cancer cells in them all the time, and the immune system fights it.
If smoking caused cancer, everyone who smoked for some period of time would get cancer. A small portion of smokers lives to a ripe old age, at which time getting any disease is roughly the same as if they had never smoked at all.
Point me to a law where this is illegal. Police agencies have used helicopters for decades, and the Supreme court has thrown out evidence if there wasn't probably cause to look over a fence. There is some semblance of balance.
The local ghetto bird flies over our house several times a week on it's way to and fro whatever it's going to and fro from. There is nothing today that doesn't prevent that helicopter from having a camera on it. Oh wait.. it does. It has even shown it's very bright light into our backyard on occasion as it searches for something. Just yesterday, it flew in circles in the area next to our house for at least 30 minutes. The first time, it flew over, I realized I was crouched down in what could be taken as someone hiding (I was drilling holes in the concrete to attach a shade structure to), so I stood up and watched it fly over the next time just to make sure they saw me.
The only things different that I can tell is I can hear the helicopter and not the drone, the helicopter can't stay up as long, and it probably can't fly as high. Try and dehumanize it as much as you want, a person still has to review the footage to make any sense of it. Just as people review traffic camera footage before the tickets go out. In the end, you can still go to court and have a real person testify as to what was being recorded and interpret it.
Standardized tests are there to test the school, not the student. They were introduced because the federal government is subsidizing local schools and want to show something for their money. No test taking.. no money. They can't require it any other way. Private schools don't have to take standardized tests now.
It is only politics that make them so important that many schools started to teach to the test. Get rid of federal subsidies for local education, and the standardized tests will go away.
As to your comment about rote, you are dead on. I shake my head in disgust every time I see a cashier that doesn't know how to make change, or can't figure out what 10% or 20% of something is.
I've been playing for over 30 years and have never joined a country club.
On the other hand, I've met people from all over the world and enjoyed a few hours getting to know someone I will probably never see again. I've met people who could barely afford to play but loved to and could only afford cheap city courses. I've met people that were very well off, but it took a few hours to find out. I can count on one hand those that I hoped to never see again. The only 'networking' I've ever done playing golf is at company functions, or the few times sales people have invited me. If someone only plays to network, they probably don't play very much. Or are a sales person.
The people that I know that join a private club do so because they want to be able to get tee times. That is the great advantage of joining a club, the fees limit the number of people that can join, and so also limit the demands placed on the course. Many local courses have memberships, and members get to call a couple of days sooner for tee times than the rest of us. They aren't as exclusive, and the memberships aren't as expensive, but they serve the same purpose.
It's a shame you didn't have good experiences. But you appear to be very self-centered and don't realize there are plenty of other people in the world who have different experiences than you have. Maybe you should stop generalizing about something you appear to know so very little about and learn to enjoy life a little more.
Every couple of years, in the summer, I pony up $100 and play the TPC in Scottsdale. Well, I used to. I don't anymore because I don't belong on the course. It is far more difficult than anyone watching it on TV can imagine, you pay dearly if you don't land in the fairway or green. I did score one birdie on the TPC, it was a beautiful par 3 shot that landed 6 inches from the hole. But even I knew that it was more blind luck than skill.
It's a beautiful course, and I'm thankful for the experience of trying to play it. I'd love to play at St. Andrews once in my life. But I'm happy to play on a $30 course a couple of times a month. It's all the challenge I need.
Several years ago, when I and a few friends were new to Phoenix and trying out new courses, we came up with a rule. If you can't score a par on at least one hole, you can't come back for 5 years. The course is just too difficult for you. It's a rule that has served me well.
It's all about priorities and whether or not it's affordable. By the time someone buys soda and popcorn, a movie can cost $15-$20. I reason that I can play golf once or twice a month, and just not go to the movies as much.
Some of the nicest people I've ever met I've met playing golf. Respectful, courteous, and often have interesting stories to share.
On the other hand, some of the biggest jerks I've ever heard spout their opinions about an activity they know very little about and probably suck at. I'm sure they feel smug in their own little minds but sound like assholes to everyone else.
Bull shit. It takes less time to play golf than watch a movie, you can play 9 holes in 90 minutes on some courses, no more than 2 hours on most others. I used to walk 9 holes with my co-workers every Friday morning before work for $15. And still get into the office by 9am most days except in the middle of winter. (I live in Phoenix).
I spend about $30 every month and spend about 4 hours Saturday or Sunday morning to play. I get home before noon and still have the rest of the day to enjoy with my wife. Or to do yard work. Or spend way too much money to see a movie.
True, I've spent over a hundred dollars to play on some really nice courses, Like once every two years. And I probably pay over $70 a few times a year to play on some very good courses. But those are usually with people I don't get to see very often and choose to spend the day with.
Admit that you just don't like the game and choose to not learn it, and move on. It's embarrassing to see someone blaming everything else and not accepting responsibility for their own actions.
It's often frustrating to people who think the right solution to fix their swing or putt is to go out and spend thousands on clubs instead of a couple hundred on lessons. And that they only need to play 2 or 3 times a year.
From what I've noticed, those that find it frustrating often just don't know how to hit the ball. Or they have huge egos and blame the equipment, or won't accept anything but perfection. If someone was having an awful game with a 9 iron and putter, then they didn't now know to swing a golf club. Perfectly good reason to not play when one doesn't know what they are doing.
While there is no single 'right' way to do it, I've seen plenty of wrong ways to do it. Twenty years ago, I decided to spend $120 on some lessons. All I asked the guy was to help me hit the ball reasonably straight and up in the air so I don't embarrass myself. I used to play every week and was getting better. Now I play around once a month, and have stopped improving and even backslid a little bit. I may only shoot around 90 now, but at least I don't lose balls very often and can usually end up somewhere close to the fairway. And I'm comfortable playing a round with strangers, knowing that the shanks will be few enough we can laugh at them instead of dreading teeing off.
Like so many other activities, golf requires practice. I once had a CIO ask me if he should take up golf. I told him that unless he was willing to take lessons, play every week for a few months, then every month or two for the rest of his life, I wouldn't bother. One has to practice to become decent, and then play more than a couple of times a year to maintain.
I have found golf to be a very rewarding experience. It isn't too difficult to find places to play for $30 or less. That's 4-5 hours of being outside and moving around. I have met lots of interesting people, and one or two complete jerks. I've developed good friendships and fun traditions. Played gold with people from all walks of life and from all over the world. Payed more than I should have to play on some beautiful courses for that once-in-a-lifetime experience. Have traveled all of the United States and found people to play a round with. People that I got to know much better than I would have sitting behind a desk and going over code.
I may never win a tournament, but I'm 54 and look forward to being able to do this for another 20-30 years.
So.. legal and responsible gun owners have to give up their guns that have never killed anyone because a very small minority of people use them badly?? Is that the extent of your argument?
I suppose you are also in favor of making rope, razors, and prescription pain killers illegal, because having those things sure make suicide a lot easier also. Probably have to eliminate cars, since people have driven themselves off of cliffs. After all, when you make one thing far more difficult to do, statistically, the other methods move up a notch. Are you going to continue to go after whatever is at the top of the list?? Wouldn't your efforts be better served to address the root cause of suicide than the end result?? Because that person that wants to kill themselves still does. Same with violent crime, those people out there with guns robbing and raping and murdering are still going to be out there. But now, they won't worry about breaking into a house.
What a moronic argument to use to justify taking guns away from people that have never used them to hurt someone. But my guess is that you don't have any, and don't want any. That you are afraid of them and don't know how to use them. That you have never gone to a gun range, learned how to use one, and enjoyed putting holes into targets. That you have never taken your family out into the desert and spent an afternoon shooting paper targets and water filled bottles, then picking up your trash and going home.
And, as the UK discovered, making them illegal didn't make them go away. How many times have caches of guns been discovered because someone didn't turn them in??
It's easy to justify taking things away from other people that you don't have, don't like, and are scared of. People can find all kinds of statistics and mis-characterize them to prove a point. I could come up with the argument that I think surfboards should be outlawed, because people have died from it, and I don't think it's safe. I don't do it myself and think that those that are passionate about it are really stupid. I'm sure I could mis-characterize all types of statistics that show how dangerous it is, and in order to protect the children it should be banned.
The facts are that people are far more likely to be killed or injured in car crashes, both accidental and intentional, than are caused by guns. That more people are killed by knives than are killed by assault rifles. But people who don't have guns and don't care if they are taken away from other people don't worry about statistics except when they can be twisted to suit their own purpose.
... to be a computer programmer or sys admin or DBA. Many short-sighted companies may not hire you, but why do you want to work for a company that cares more about a piece of paper than the abilities of it's staff. Be willing to start at the bottom so you can spend 4 years having someone else train you. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for it yourself.
After several years as in those fields, you won't need a degree to become an engineer or architect. Anything you might have learned 10 years earlier is out of date anyway. And you will know how things really work, instead of just how they are supposed to work.
I know many people who are some of the top 'go-to' people in their companies in these fields that have never gotten a degree, or taken any significant number of college courses. They know how to read, and they learn by doing, either on their own or by taking on tasks that other people are unwilling to because they don't know how to do it.
Your guidance councilor is lying to you. The only thing that stands between you and a job is your own willingness to learn, and how smart you are.
By all means, if you are not that smart, go into debt and get that piece of paper that suggests you know something so you can get a job and have your co-workers hate working with you.
If you have the cash and the time, by all means attend college. College is a great place to learn if you want to take too much time and spend a lot of money.
But don't accept the lie that you have to do that to earn a decent living. And don't accept the lie that those that go to college make more money.
Smart, self-motivated, hard working people make more money than almost everyone else.
In my job in the US, I get paid a set amount to do my job regardless of how many hours I work. I don't get paid by the hour. If I get a call from my work at 2am, I answer it. If I don't, they can fire me and hire someone who will. If I don't like the number of times I'm getting woken up at 2am, I'll find another job.
When I take a new job, I ask what amount of 'off-the-clock' work is expected and negotiate a salary based on that. Asking me to check emails and take calls after work isn't taking advantage of me since I negotiated my rate of pay based on it.
It is none of the government's business what the company I choose to work for and I negotiate for payment for my services rendered. If they want to set rules about taking taxes out and making sure I get paid on a regular basis and other rules regarding discrimination, that's fine. If they want to set rules to make sure people get paid for their work when they are hourly, that's fine.
But stay out of telling me what I am willing to work for and what I'm not willing to work for. I feel sympathy for those that don't have skills in demand that have to take tough jobs, like I had to do my 20s and 30s. Since then, I've improved my skills and expect to be able to reap the reward from doing so.
So now companies in France will have to hire more people to provide after-hours support, meaning their costs will go up, and their products will become more expensive. So fewer and fewer people will buy them.
But that's OK with me, I don't know if much I own now that is marked 'Fabriqué en France'.
I don't find the supporters of 'straight only' marriage hypocritical, they admit they want special rights. I find them misguided in what they are trying to accomplish though, to force their moral values onto others through something that doesn't stop a lifestyle, i.e. two people living together and having sex.
Interesting you used the word 'hate'. I reread the above and don't understand why you would use that word except for the 'hypocrites' line. Probably should have worded that one phrase a little better (i.e. arguments are hypocritical, not people). I didn't say it anywhere, about hating anyone, meant to state an opinion of what I feel their argument is (i.e. hypocritical).
Maybe if more people used reason instead of emotion, this issue could get resolved. Instead, those that disagree are labeled 'haters' and 'homophobes', vile words that denigrate and divide. Terms that are divisive are often used by someone when they run out of valid points to make.
As for marriage-like benefits not being extended, they already are. Many companies now offer 'civil union' or 'domestic partner' benefits. None of those state that a couple have to be romantically involved. In fact, there is *NOTHING* in marriage benefits that say people have to be paired romantically. There have been many marriages of convenience that were very legal. Those 'domestic partner'-like benefits were extended by people putting pressure on specific items, not trying to force their moral beliefs or attacking people as haters. They used their wallets to go elsewhere if they could.
Since romance,sex, and love have nothing to do with whether or not a couple are recognized as married by the government, the benefits attached to the concept should also not be linked to those things. The governments of the US has a lot of silly laws about marriage. In Maine, a marriage between second cousins is allowed as long as they attend genetic counseling, regardless whether or not they are interested or capable of having children. In Tennessee, a 14 year old can get married if there is a court order.
Eliminate the government concept of marriage and reduce it to what the government really should be helping with.. contract law. Divorce laws should be applicable to any couple (or more) who have willingly entered into financial interdependence. Child support and visitation laws already apply without a marriage contract.
If someone wants to get married.. go right ahead. Have the ceremony you dreamed about in front of your friends and relatives. Have a religious figure denote you as officially married. Even include signing a legal document stating you want to be recognized as a financially interdependent couple in front of everyone.
Or don't have the ceremony, and just go to the courthouse.
See.. nothing has changed. People can still do whatever they want. The only difference is the government has non-gender, relationship neutral rules surrounding what that is. Rules like living together and being financially interdependent.
And all the hate speech fostered by the gay-marriage and straight marriage activists can finally go away.
This is more like the Church of England and it's inquisition, where heretics where hunted down and punished because they dared believe something different. The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have. Personally, I don't give a crap who someone has sex with. I just find it repulsive when people who don't feel the same way are called names like 'homophobe'. The name callers are no different than those who call people who want legalized abortion to remain legal murders, narrow minded and unwilling to even try and look at the other side of the discussion. Or carry on a real conversation for fear they might just be wrong. It seems to me that allowing gay people to marry only creates even more discrimination. It's adding another group into the married pool that gets special privileges just because they sign a piece of paper. There is nothing about being legally accepted as married that is different from living together, except government benefits and some company benefits. Nothing. Nada. It's all about a very small group of people wanting to get the same extra privileges that a larger group enjoy because the acquiesce to the government's attempt to force social behaviors. I knew a couple that didn't want to be married because of student loan issues (they didn't want his income to be included in the calculations), so they had a 'joining' ceremony and lived together for years. Everyone treated them as married, EXCEPT the government. Which was exactly what they wanted.
Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits. It's just more of today's entitlement society where someone wants something from the government. Of they want the government to force companies to give them benefits. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.
Name one benefit afforded to a married couple that shouldn't also be afforded to any two people just living together, that have agreed to create a financial interdependence. Why can't two sisters who have lived together their entire lives get the same social security and tax benefits as a married couple, simply because they don't get married. Why should two roommates, no matter what sex they are, be denied those same benefits simply because they don't want to have sex with each other. In fact, name one reason why two roommates, who don't have sex, can't get 'married' and get the same benefits. Isn't that sexual discrimination??? How long will it be before people start to figure that out. All gay marriage laws do is dilute the term 'marriage' (which barely means anything anymore anyway), reducing it to a simple 'give me my entitlement' statement.
My mother and brother lived together for many years until she passed away. He was an independent truck driver and only needed a place to sleep on the weekends. She was retired and did his paperwork (there is a lot of paperwork for truck drivers) and scheduled his loads. Why couldn't they get the same tax benefits of 'married, filing jointly' as anyone else. Why shouldn't he be able to name her as his social security beneficiary. If he passed away suddenly, my mother was just as financially dependent on him as she would have been to a husband and would have found it difficult to manage without his income.
Hypocrites.. that's what I think those that support gay marriage are. They don't give a flip about equality, they only want to force their moral beliefs on those that disagree, and enable a very small group of select people to get benefits. If they truly wanted equality, they would fight to ELIMINATE all benefits tied to being married. Tax laws could be changed to allow for household incomes to be used. Social Security survivor-ship benefits could be simply modified to allow for one person to receive them, and set several rules (such as living together for a number of years while working and paying social security taxes). D
I've stepped on the brake and gas pedals at the same time in both a Jeep Liberty and Toyota FJ. The correct term for this is 'the driver putting his foot in the wrong place'. The first time it happened, I had no idea what was going on at first, the engine was racing and I wasn't slowing down. Lifted my foot and did it again, but managed to just hit the brake pedal. Thought about it afterward and realized what I did. I have been driving for years, both manual and automatic transmissions. I have no idea why I did it, other than I just put my foot in the wrong place.
The second time I did it, and shifted my foot immediately. Haven't done it since.
This adaptation technique is called 'learning how to drive your car'.
'On average' is not an indication of actual future personal return. It's difficult to measure effectively since a person can't go back in time, go to college (or not go), and see the difference. So we are left with studies which have to take hundreds of factors into account (social, economic, intelligence, motivation, etc) to even begin to match up people to see if one group does better than another. And since they can't we are left with flawed analytics that people use to justify their own opinions in many cases.
And it's a BS goal anyway. Who goes to college to get a return?? Either you want to go to learn something, or you don't. As long as you can earn a decent living afterward either with or without the debt, who gives a flying fuck how much it cost. Just be smart about it and either don't go into debt at all, or only go into debt enough that it doesn't impact your life afterward.
The facts do tell us that many people have gone to college and not seen any return. Many people have not gone to college and done very well. And many people have gone to college and done well. So there is ample evidence to suggest, in my opinion, that the person has more to do with getting a return or not that the institution itself. I've also known enough mart people with and without degrees, and enough stupid people with doctorates, to know not to trust a piece of paper. Or even use it as a filter.
In my experience, smart, motivated people really don't need to go to college to do well. Average students need to in order to get that paper that claims they can at least learn something and are trained to some degree (as was pointed out in the article). Everyone can learn something, it's all a question of how much that piece of paper is worth to you. You know, that piece of paper that shows you know how to kiss up to your professors and give them the answers they want instead of the right answer, and take tests. And don't give me that crap about how it makes you well rounded. Nothing makes you more well rounded than actually working around people from different backgrounds.
In my opinion, there are far too many ways to go to college over time to risk large debt over questionable future potential. The best fix for the system is for the government to stop handing out money so colleges have an incentive to attract students, instead of seeing a tide of people with dollars available that were lied to by some guidance councilor who told them that they have to go to college to make a decent living.
The best way, in my opinion, is to get a freakin' job and go part time. Live at home, and go to a community college for a couple of years. Save money and get grants or scholarships instead of loans.
Don't want to work at McDonalds or in a call center?? Think it's beneath you?? Then don't come to me asking for a job, your attitude sucks. I'm looking for someone who is willing to do what it takes to get what they want, but are smart enough to know that huge piles of debt isn't a smart way to begin a career. Attitude and some business sense are just as important as how smart or trained someone is.
Continue to hold the student accountable. They're the ones that were too stupid to go to a college and get a degree for a job good enough to pay it off. And too stupid to figure out debt v/s income ratios. And maybe their parents if they were involved in the stupid decision to send their kids to college without a means to pay for it.
That's the problem with so many people today.. it's always someone else who is the problem.
But, to be fair, the government *IS* the problem. What accounts for free money with no responsibility has resulted in sky rocketing college costs. The tuition cost of Arizona State University, in a span of 7 years, has more than doubled. Yet inflation has been almost nil. Why does it rise?? Because they are still filling the classrooms with students and can. It's amazing how motivating it is to cut costs when you don't have an endless supply of people with the ability to pay whatever you charge.
And yet, there are people like my daughter who graduates this year at the age of 28 with a 4 year degree in biology, and heavy into genetic engineering. She is interning at the Mayo clinic and involved in cancer research and genetic engineering and will graduate with zero debt, except for a house payment. No car loan, no credit cards, no student loans. She got a job in high school, saved money, then got another job when she got out of high school that paid a lot better (yes.. they do exist.) Then she went to work part time, and later full time as she was able to increase her income. I only paid for one semester, and I think her grandmother paid for a couple more. To be fair, I offered to pay for one semester a year, but she wouldn't ask for it after the first one. She was determined to pay for it herself.
When she started going, tuition was only a couple grand a semester. And she lived at home. She got married a couple of years ago, and she and her husband (who also has no college debt and is due to graduate this year with his doctorate) were able to buy a house and pay less than most would for rent.
If the college experience means going tens of thousands into debt, maybe we are sending the wrong message. Just living at home could cut 50% off of student loans.
It is possible to go to college without getting loans. Maybe we should only let people smart enough to figure it out go to college.
... is the word 'qualified'. I've never interviewed so many stupid smart people ever in my life the last 10 years. People who just got out of college and expect to pull down 6 figure salaries for work they've never done before and have no proof of how good they could be. And people that think they are much better than they really are, but couldn't code their way out of a paper bag. My prior job hired a self-described 'Java programmer' that wrote some of the most horrid code I've ever seen, it didn't even come close to working. Yet he sold himself as a Java expert to the company owner (who had no IT skills), and somehow convinced him to hire him. The only thing it appeared he knew how to do was talk a good talk and use SSIS. Shortly after I left, he managed to completely obliterate a very important production database. That they had to contract with me to recover.
I now work with some really good developers because the company is choosy about who they hire. But time and time again, they lament about a shortage out there of really good developers. They get plenty of resumes, just no one worth hiring.
And attitudes... such a bunch of spoiled babies. It's not just skills either, it's a good work ethic. Sorry.. we do have a dress code where we work. If someone can't manage to wear clean clothes that include long pants and a collared shirt every day because it's a little too restraining, they can't work here. We pay enough, I know they can afford it If someone can't manage to understand that we have standards and security requirements and they can't just write whatever they want and shove it into production, they can't work here.
So I guess if someone wants mediocrity or less, there is plenty to choose from.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the threat that some self-righteous person can lie and manipulate his fellow workers into risking their jobs and livelihoods just so the self-righteous person can get some attention?? That if someone at work asks you to do something that isn't following procedure that you probably shouldn't do it because you could lose your job for someone that doesn't give a crap about you and will just flee the country and leave you hanging in the wind??
I hope so, maybe we can stop more security leaks.
Because the last time I checked ... nothing has changed. Other than Snowden getting far more press coverage than he deserves.
Or will Sony be brave enough to paint the entire picture rather than just try and create a feel-good movie about an underdog by only presenting the facts that help them get the best ratings instead of presenting a balanced viewpoint?
Probably .. that's what most documentaries do. Al Gore and Michael Moore are masters of that, I wonder if Sony will hire them.
Maybe not, but 2 years of trade school coupled with 2 years of having a real job is far more experience than someone will ever get in college. I'll take the 2 year trade school person who was smart enough to figure out that they can spend 2 years in a trade school for far less money and come out with the skills necessary to start work, than someone so stupid they spend 4 years in college, rack up tons of debt, only to gain a few more hours of lab time, get useless credits in useless subjects, and some questionable theory that will probably be out of date in 4-5 years anyway when the NBT becomes the craze.
College can't teach someone how to be a programmer, it can only teach the syntax and theory to become a coder. Only experience and aptitude can make someone a programmer.
But, on the other hand, if someone has been coding for 10 years and the only language they know is PHP, maybe they aren't that smart to begin with. During my first 5 years of working with computers, I learned two different assemblers, FORTRAN, BASIC, and COBOL. Over the years I've added even more as I've needed to. No college in the world is going to teach someone that many different languages. On working in the real world and stepping up when needed can.
So .. can I do this in my motorcycle also then?? I'll save gas and time also. I hate stopping at stop signs and having to actually put my foot down, it takes so much extra energy. And why can't I just roll through a stop light if no one is coming, I can see traffic perfectly well and shouldn't have to stop if I judge that it's safe.
Just like a cyclist .. trying to justify a special rule just for them because they are too freakin' lazy to take their foot out of their clips. Or don't know how to balance a bike.
Tell you what .. when you can get all the asshole cyclists (I'm specifying a specific subgroup of all cyclists that think they own the road, not the polite ones that know how to share the road) to ride in their special bike lane single file so cars don't have to swerve around them, or just to ride single file anywhere there is traffic, and to not ride past lines of traffic on the the right, putting themselves at risk just to blow through a stop light, maybe I'll think about it. But I see cyclists every week who put themselves into situations that are far more risky than what this law is asking for. Mostly because it appears they think that just because the law supports them, they can bleeding well do just about anything they want to, no matter how inconsiderate and risky it is.
Nope .. I can't support giving cyclists special rights just because they are too lazy to put their foot down at a stop sign.
Get Soros and the associated liberal special interests into the same trailer and I'll support it.
Only liberal hypocrites complain about conservative special interests while ignoring the fact they have plenty of their own.
Either you pay for the lines feeding your house, or you only get wholesale rates for your power. My water bill is that way, I pay a flat monthly fee, plus an additional cost for water. I don't see anyone whining about the poor being affected.
If someone with solar doesn't like it, they can go to a completely self-contained system with batteries that doesn't feed anything back.
Government subsidies create unfair marketing systems that artificially reduce one cost while moving it somewhere else and hiding it. In the US, we pay lower prices for food because of agriculture subsidies. But, in the end. we still pay the 'real' cost because of increases in taxes. Plus all of the administrative overhead that goes into managing the subsidies. Better to eliminate the subsidies, lower the taxes, and let the market set the prices. If the government then needs to supplement the food stamp system, it can do that.
Plus, subsidies seem to never go away. Some special-interest lobbying group somewhere manages to present biased statistics 'proving' that the subsidies are still needed.
Those 80% are simply parroting back what the government and various anti-smoking groups flood every source of media with. They don't have to understand science to parrot something back. Some do, but most don't.
Besides, saying smoking causes cancer is a lie. Or at best a less-than-accurate statement. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Smoking increases the risk of cancer. People have cancer cells in them all the time, and the immune system fights it.
If smoking caused cancer, everyone who smoked for some period of time would get cancer. A small portion of smokers lives to a ripe old age, at which time getting any disease is roughly the same as if they had never smoked at all.
Point me to a law where this is illegal. Police agencies have used helicopters for decades, and the Supreme court has thrown out evidence if there wasn't probably cause to look over a fence. There is some semblance of balance.
The local ghetto bird flies over our house several times a week on it's way to and fro whatever it's going to and fro from. There is nothing today that doesn't prevent that helicopter from having a camera on it. Oh wait .. it does. It has even shown it's very bright light into our backyard on occasion as it searches for something. Just yesterday, it flew in circles in the area next to our house for at least 30 minutes. The first time, it flew over, I realized I was crouched down in what could be taken as someone hiding (I was drilling holes in the concrete to attach a shade structure to), so I stood up and watched it fly over the next time just to make sure they saw me.
The only things different that I can tell is I can hear the helicopter and not the drone, the helicopter can't stay up as long, and it probably can't fly as high. Try and dehumanize it as much as you want, a person still has to review the footage to make any sense of it. Just as people review traffic camera footage before the tickets go out. In the end, you can still go to court and have a real person testify as to what was being recorded and interpret it.
You sound stupid
Standardized tests are there to test the school, not the student. They were introduced because the federal government is subsidizing local schools and want to show something for their money. No test taking .. no money. They can't require it any other way. Private schools don't have to take standardized tests now.
It is only politics that make them so important that many schools started to teach to the test. Get rid of federal subsidies for local education, and the standardized tests will go away.
As to your comment about rote, you are dead on. I shake my head in disgust every time I see a cashier that doesn't know how to make change, or can't figure out what 10% or 20% of something is.
I've been playing for over 30 years and have never joined a country club.
On the other hand, I've met people from all over the world and enjoyed a few hours getting to know someone I will probably never see again. I've met people who could barely afford to play but loved to and could only afford cheap city courses. I've met people that were very well off, but it took a few hours to find out. I can count on one hand those that I hoped to never see again. The only 'networking' I've ever done playing golf is at company functions, or the few times sales people have invited me. If someone only plays to network, they probably don't play very much. Or are a sales person.
The people that I know that join a private club do so because they want to be able to get tee times. That is the great advantage of joining a club, the fees limit the number of people that can join, and so also limit the demands placed on the course. Many local courses have memberships, and members get to call a couple of days sooner for tee times than the rest of us. They aren't as exclusive, and the memberships aren't as expensive, but they serve the same purpose.
It's a shame you didn't have good experiences. But you appear to be very self-centered and don't realize there are plenty of other people in the world who have different experiences than you have. Maybe you should stop generalizing about something you appear to know so very little about and learn to enjoy life a little more.
Every couple of years, in the summer, I pony up $100 and play the TPC in Scottsdale. Well, I used to. I don't anymore because I don't belong on the course. It is far more difficult than anyone watching it on TV can imagine, you pay dearly if you don't land in the fairway or green. I did score one birdie on the TPC, it was a beautiful par 3 shot that landed 6 inches from the hole. But even I knew that it was more blind luck than skill.
It's a beautiful course, and I'm thankful for the experience of trying to play it. I'd love to play at St. Andrews once in my life. But I'm happy to play on a $30 course a couple of times a month. It's all the challenge I need.
Several years ago, when I and a few friends were new to Phoenix and trying out new courses, we came up with a rule. If you can't score a par on at least one hole, you can't come back for 5 years. The course is just too difficult for you. It's a rule that has served me well.
It's all about priorities and whether or not it's affordable. By the time someone buys soda and popcorn, a movie can cost $15-$20. I reason that I can play golf once or twice a month, and just not go to the movies as much.
Some of the nicest people I've ever met I've met playing golf. Respectful, courteous, and often have interesting stories to share.
On the other hand, some of the biggest jerks I've ever heard spout their opinions about an activity they know very little about and probably suck at. I'm sure they feel smug in their own little minds but sound like assholes to everyone else.
Bull shit. It takes less time to play golf than watch a movie, you can play 9 holes in 90 minutes on some courses, no more than 2 hours on most others. I used to walk 9 holes with my co-workers every Friday morning before work for $15. And still get into the office by 9am most days except in the middle of winter. (I live in Phoenix).
I spend about $30 every month and spend about 4 hours Saturday or Sunday morning to play. I get home before noon and still have the rest of the day to enjoy with my wife. Or to do yard work. Or spend way too much money to see a movie.
True, I've spent over a hundred dollars to play on some really nice courses, Like once every two years. And I probably pay over $70 a few times a year to play on some very good courses. But those are usually with people I don't get to see very often and choose to spend the day with.
Admit that you just don't like the game and choose to not learn it, and move on. It's embarrassing to see someone blaming everything else and not accepting responsibility for their own actions.
It's often frustrating to people who think the right solution to fix their swing or putt is to go out and spend thousands on clubs instead of a couple hundred on lessons. And that they only need to play 2 or 3 times a year.
From what I've noticed, those that find it frustrating often just don't know how to hit the ball. Or they have huge egos and blame the equipment, or won't accept anything but perfection. If someone was having an awful game with a 9 iron and putter, then they didn't now know to swing a golf club. Perfectly good reason to not play when one doesn't know what they are doing.
While there is no single 'right' way to do it, I've seen plenty of wrong ways to do it. Twenty years ago, I decided to spend $120 on some lessons. All I asked the guy was to help me hit the ball reasonably straight and up in the air so I don't embarrass myself. I used to play every week and was getting better. Now I play around once a month, and have stopped improving and even backslid a little bit. I may only shoot around 90 now, but at least I don't lose balls very often and can usually end up somewhere close to the fairway. And I'm comfortable playing a round with strangers, knowing that the shanks will be few enough we can laugh at them instead of dreading teeing off.
Like so many other activities, golf requires practice. I once had a CIO ask me if he should take up golf. I told him that unless he was willing to take lessons, play every week for a few months, then every month or two for the rest of his life, I wouldn't bother. One has to practice to become decent, and then play more than a couple of times a year to maintain.
I have found golf to be a very rewarding experience. It isn't too difficult to find places to play for $30 or less. That's 4-5 hours of being outside and moving around. I have met lots of interesting people, and one or two complete jerks. I've developed good friendships and fun traditions. Played gold with people from all walks of life and from all over the world. Payed more than I should have to play on some beautiful courses for that once-in-a-lifetime experience. Have traveled all of the United States and found people to play a round with. People that I got to know much better than I would have sitting behind a desk and going over code.
I may never win a tournament, but I'm 54 and look forward to being able to do this for another 20-30 years.
So .. legal and responsible gun owners have to give up their guns that have never killed anyone because a very small minority of people use them badly?? Is that the extent of your argument?
I suppose you are also in favor of making rope, razors, and prescription pain killers illegal, because having those things sure make suicide a lot easier also. Probably have to eliminate cars, since people have driven themselves off of cliffs. After all, when you make one thing far more difficult to do, statistically, the other methods move up a notch. Are you going to continue to go after whatever is at the top of the list?? Wouldn't your efforts be better served to address the root cause of suicide than the end result?? Because that person that wants to kill themselves still does. Same with violent crime, those people out there with guns robbing and raping and murdering are still going to be out there. But now, they won't worry about breaking into a house.
What a moronic argument to use to justify taking guns away from people that have never used them to hurt someone. But my guess is that you don't have any, and don't want any. That you are afraid of them and don't know how to use them. That you have never gone to a gun range, learned how to use one, and enjoyed putting holes into targets. That you have never taken your family out into the desert and spent an afternoon shooting paper targets and water filled bottles, then picking up your trash and going home.
And, as the UK discovered, making them illegal didn't make them go away. How many times have caches of guns been discovered because someone didn't turn them in??
It's easy to justify taking things away from other people that you don't have, don't like, and are scared of. People can find all kinds of statistics and mis-characterize them to prove a point. I could come up with the argument that I think surfboards should be outlawed, because people have died from it, and I don't think it's safe. I don't do it myself and think that those that are passionate about it are really stupid. I'm sure I could mis-characterize all types of statistics that show how dangerous it is, and in order to protect the children it should be banned.
The facts are that people are far more likely to be killed or injured in car crashes, both accidental and intentional, than are caused by guns. That more people are killed by knives than are killed by assault rifles. But people who don't have guns and don't care if they are taken away from other people don't worry about statistics except when they can be twisted to suit their own purpose.
... to be a computer programmer or sys admin or DBA. Many short-sighted companies may not hire you, but why do you want to work for a company that cares more about a piece of paper than the abilities of it's staff. Be willing to start at the bottom so you can spend 4 years having someone else train you. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for it yourself.
After several years as in those fields, you won't need a degree to become an engineer or architect. Anything you might have learned 10 years earlier is out of date anyway. And you will know how things really work, instead of just how they are supposed to work.
I know many people who are some of the top 'go-to' people in their companies in these fields that have never gotten a degree, or taken any significant number of college courses. They know how to read, and they learn by doing, either on their own or by taking on tasks that other people are unwilling to because they don't know how to do it.
Your guidance councilor is lying to you. The only thing that stands between you and a job is your own willingness to learn, and how smart you are.
By all means, if you are not that smart, go into debt and get that piece of paper that suggests you know something so you can get a job and have your co-workers hate working with you.
If you have the cash and the time, by all means attend college. College is a great place to learn if you want to take too much time and spend a lot of money.
But don't accept the lie that you have to do that to earn a decent living. And don't accept the lie that those that go to college make more money.
Smart, self-motivated, hard working people make more money than almost everyone else.
In my job in the US, I get paid a set amount to do my job regardless of how many hours I work. I don't get paid by the hour. If I get a call from my work at 2am, I answer it. If I don't, they can fire me and hire someone who will. If I don't like the number of times I'm getting woken up at 2am, I'll find another job.
When I take a new job, I ask what amount of 'off-the-clock' work is expected and negotiate a salary based on that. Asking me to check emails and take calls after work isn't taking advantage of me since I negotiated my rate of pay based on it.
It is none of the government's business what the company I choose to work for and I negotiate for payment for my services rendered. If they want to set rules about taking taxes out and making sure I get paid on a regular basis and other rules regarding discrimination, that's fine. If they want to set rules to make sure people get paid for their work when they are hourly, that's fine.
But stay out of telling me what I am willing to work for and what I'm not willing to work for. I feel sympathy for those that don't have skills in demand that have to take tough jobs, like I had to do my 20s and 30s. Since then, I've improved my skills and expect to be able to reap the reward from doing so.
So now companies in France will have to hire more people to provide after-hours support, meaning their costs will go up, and their products will become more expensive. So fewer and fewer people will buy them.
But that's OK with me, I don't know if much I own now that is marked 'Fabriqué en France'.
I don't find the supporters of 'straight only' marriage hypocritical, they admit they want special rights. I find them misguided in what they are trying to accomplish though, to force their moral values onto others through something that doesn't stop a lifestyle, i.e. two people living together and having sex.
Interesting you used the word 'hate'. I reread the above and don't understand why you would use that word except for the 'hypocrites' line. Probably should have worded that one phrase a little better (i.e. arguments are hypocritical, not people). I didn't say it anywhere, about hating anyone, meant to state an opinion of what I feel their argument is (i.e. hypocritical).
Maybe if more people used reason instead of emotion, this issue could get resolved. Instead, those that disagree are labeled 'haters' and 'homophobes', vile words that denigrate and divide. Terms that are divisive are often used by someone when they run out of valid points to make.
As for marriage-like benefits not being extended, they already are. Many companies now offer 'civil union' or 'domestic partner' benefits. None of those state that a couple have to be romantically involved. In fact, there is *NOTHING* in marriage benefits that say people have to be paired romantically. There have been many marriages of convenience that were very legal. Those 'domestic partner'-like benefits were extended by people putting pressure on specific items, not trying to force their moral beliefs or attacking people as haters. They used their wallets to go elsewhere if they could.
Since romance,sex, and love have nothing to do with whether or not a couple are recognized as married by the government, the benefits attached to the concept should also not be linked to those things. The governments of the US has a lot of silly laws about marriage. In Maine, a marriage between second cousins is allowed as long as they attend genetic counseling, regardless whether or not they are interested or capable of having children. In Tennessee, a 14 year old can get married if there is a court order.
Eliminate the government concept of marriage and reduce it to what the government really should be helping with .. contract law. Divorce laws should be applicable to any couple (or more) who have willingly entered into financial interdependence. Child support and visitation laws already apply without a marriage contract.
If someone wants to get married .. go right ahead. Have the ceremony you dreamed about in front of your friends and relatives. Have a religious figure denote you as officially married. Even include signing a legal document stating you want to be recognized as a financially interdependent couple in front of everyone.
Or don't have the ceremony, and just go to the courthouse.
See .. nothing has changed. People can still do whatever they want. The only difference is the government has non-gender, relationship neutral rules surrounding what that is. Rules like living together and being financially interdependent.
And all the hate speech fostered by the gay-marriage and straight marriage activists can finally go away.
... that someone who lied and manipulated people is given a 'truth telling' award.
I guess it's OK to lie when you are getting what you want because the voices in your head are telling you it's the right thing to do.
This is more like the Church of England and it's inquisition, where heretics where hunted down and punished because they dared believe something different. The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have. Personally, I don't give a crap who someone has sex with. I just find it repulsive when people who don't feel the same way are called names like 'homophobe'. The name callers are no different than those who call people who want legalized abortion to remain legal murders, narrow minded and unwilling to even try and look at the other side of the discussion. Or carry on a real conversation for fear they might just be wrong.
It seems to me that allowing gay people to marry only creates even more discrimination. It's adding another group into the married pool that gets special privileges just because they sign a piece of paper. There is nothing about being legally accepted as married that is different from living together, except government benefits and some company benefits. Nothing. Nada. It's all about a very small group of people wanting to get the same extra privileges that a larger group enjoy because the acquiesce to the government's attempt to force social behaviors. I knew a couple that didn't want to be married because of student loan issues (they didn't want his income to be included in the calculations), so they had a 'joining' ceremony and lived together for years. Everyone treated them as married, EXCEPT the government. Which was exactly what they wanted.
Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits. It's just more of today's entitlement society where someone wants something from the government. Of they want the government to force companies to give them benefits. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.
Name one benefit afforded to a married couple that shouldn't also be afforded to any two people just living together, that have agreed to create a financial interdependence. Why can't two sisters who have lived together their entire lives get the same social security and tax benefits as a married couple, simply because they don't get married. Why should two roommates, no matter what sex they are, be denied those same benefits simply because they don't want to have sex with each other. In fact, name one reason why two roommates, who don't have sex, can't get 'married' and get the same benefits. Isn't that sexual discrimination??? How long will it be before people start to figure that out. All gay marriage laws do is dilute the term 'marriage' (which barely means anything anymore anyway), reducing it to a simple 'give me my entitlement' statement.
My mother and brother lived together for many years until she passed away. He was an independent truck driver and only needed a place to sleep on the weekends. She was retired and did his paperwork (there is a lot of paperwork for truck drivers) and scheduled his loads. Why couldn't they get the same tax benefits of 'married, filing jointly' as anyone else. Why shouldn't he be able to name her as his social security beneficiary. If he passed away suddenly, my mother was just as financially dependent on him as she would have been to a husband and would have found it difficult to manage without his income.
Hypocrites .. that's what I think those that support gay marriage are. They don't give a flip about equality, they only want to force their moral beliefs on those that disagree, and enable a very small group of select people to get benefits. If they truly wanted equality, they would fight to ELIMINATE all benefits tied to being married. Tax laws could be changed to allow for household incomes to be used. Social Security survivor-ship benefits could be simply modified to allow for one person to receive them, and set several rules (such as living together for a number of years while working and paying social security taxes). D
I've stepped on the brake and gas pedals at the same time in both a Jeep Liberty and Toyota FJ. The correct term for this is 'the driver putting his foot in the wrong place'. The first time it happened, I had no idea what was going on at first, the engine was racing and I wasn't slowing down. Lifted my foot and did it again, but managed to just hit the brake pedal. Thought about it afterward and realized what I did. I have been driving for years, both manual and automatic transmissions. I have no idea why I did it, other than I just put my foot in the wrong place.
The second time I did it, and shifted my foot immediately. Haven't done it since.
This adaptation technique is called 'learning how to drive your car'.
'On average' is not an indication of actual future personal return. It's difficult to measure effectively since a person can't go back in time, go to college (or not go), and see the difference. So we are left with studies which have to take hundreds of factors into account (social, economic, intelligence, motivation, etc) to even begin to match up people to see if one group does better than another. And since they can't we are left with flawed analytics that people use to justify their own opinions in many cases.
And it's a BS goal anyway. Who goes to college to get a return?? Either you want to go to learn something, or you don't. As long as you can earn a decent living afterward either with or without the debt, who gives a flying fuck how much it cost. Just be smart about it and either don't go into debt at all, or only go into debt enough that it doesn't impact your life afterward.
The facts do tell us that many people have gone to college and not seen any return. Many people have not gone to college and done very well. And many people have gone to college and done well. So there is ample evidence to suggest, in my opinion, that the person has more to do with getting a return or not that the institution itself. I've also known enough mart people with and without degrees, and enough stupid people with doctorates, to know not to trust a piece of paper. Or even use it as a filter.
In my experience, smart, motivated people really don't need to go to college to do well. Average students need to in order to get that paper that claims they can at least learn something and are trained to some degree (as was pointed out in the article). Everyone can learn something, it's all a question of how much that piece of paper is worth to you. You know, that piece of paper that shows you know how to kiss up to your professors and give them the answers they want instead of the right answer, and take tests. And don't give me that crap about how it makes you well rounded. Nothing makes you more well rounded than actually working around people from different backgrounds.
In my opinion, there are far too many ways to go to college over time to risk large debt over questionable future potential. The best fix for the system is for the government to stop handing out money so colleges have an incentive to attract students, instead of seeing a tide of people with dollars available that were lied to by some guidance councilor who told them that they have to go to college to make a decent living.
The best way, in my opinion, is to get a freakin' job and go part time. Live at home, and go to a community college for a couple of years. Save money and get grants or scholarships instead of loans.
Don't want to work at McDonalds or in a call center?? Think it's beneath you?? Then don't come to me asking for a job, your attitude sucks. I'm looking for someone who is willing to do what it takes to get what they want, but are smart enough to know that huge piles of debt isn't a smart way to begin a career. Attitude and some business sense are just as important as how smart or trained someone is.
Continue to hold the student accountable. They're the ones that were too stupid to go to a college and get a degree for a job good enough to pay it off. And too stupid to figure out debt v/s income ratios. And maybe their parents if they were involved in the stupid decision to send their kids to college without a means to pay for it.
That's the problem with so many people today .. it's always someone else who is the problem.
But, to be fair, the government *IS* the problem. What accounts for free money with no responsibility has resulted in sky rocketing college costs. The tuition cost of Arizona State University, in a span of 7 years, has more than doubled. Yet inflation has been almost nil. Why does it rise?? Because they are still filling the classrooms with students and can. It's amazing how motivating it is to cut costs when you don't have an endless supply of people with the ability to pay whatever you charge.
And yet, there are people like my daughter who graduates this year at the age of 28 with a 4 year degree in biology, and heavy into genetic engineering. She is interning at the Mayo clinic and involved in cancer research and genetic engineering and will graduate with zero debt, except for a house payment. No car loan, no credit cards, no student loans. She got a job in high school, saved money, then got another job when she got out of high school that paid a lot better (yes .. they do exist.) Then she went to work part time, and later full time as she was able to increase her income. I only paid for one semester, and I think her grandmother paid for a couple more. To be fair, I offered to pay for one semester a year, but she wouldn't ask for it after the first one. She was determined to pay for it herself.
When she started going, tuition was only a couple grand a semester. And she lived at home. She got married a couple of years ago, and she and her husband (who also has no college debt and is due to graduate this year with his doctorate) were able to buy a house and pay less than most would for rent.
If the college experience means going tens of thousands into debt, maybe we are sending the wrong message. Just living at home could cut 50% off of student loans.
It is possible to go to college without getting loans. Maybe we should only let people smart enough to figure it out go to college.
Maybe people too stupid to understand science would slowly weed themselves out of society by these types of actions.
Ok .. that was intended to be sarcastic. But part of me really wishes it were true.
... is the word 'qualified'. I've never interviewed so many stupid smart people ever in my life the last 10 years. People who just got out of college and expect to pull down 6 figure salaries for work they've never done before and have no proof of how good they could be. And people that think they are much better than they really are, but couldn't code their way out of a paper bag. My prior job hired a self-described 'Java programmer' that wrote some of the most horrid code I've ever seen, it didn't even come close to working. Yet he sold himself as a Java expert to the company owner (who had no IT skills), and somehow convinced him to hire him. The only thing it appeared he knew how to do was talk a good talk and use SSIS. Shortly after I left, he managed to completely obliterate a very important production database. That they had to contract with me to recover.
I now work with some really good developers because the company is choosy about who they hire. But time and time again, they lament about a shortage out there of really good developers. They get plenty of resumes, just no one worth hiring.
And attitudes ... such a bunch of spoiled babies. It's not just skills either, it's a good work ethic. Sorry .. we do have a dress code where we work. If someone can't manage to wear clean clothes that include long pants and a collared shirt every day because it's a little too restraining, they can't work here. We pay enough, I know they can afford it If someone can't manage to understand that we have standards and security requirements and they can't just write whatever they want and shove it into production, they can't work here.
So I guess if someone wants mediocrity or less, there is plenty to choose from.