You're right. If you want to do government work, you must have the degree. Of course, they will probably not be forgiving about the type of degree you have either. So, if you have B.A. in English, you're still not gonna have any luck.
I make 6 figures and I don't even have an associates degree in comp sci. Experience > piece of paper. I have worked with many people with advanced degrees and from what I can tell, it really has no impact on their salaries. They may make a few grand more coming straight out of school but the guy who went into the real world after 4 years will make up for it by having built up experience.
I'm not saying people should not get advanced degrees, I'm merely stating that they shouldn't do it for the money because it just doesn't pay. It's misleading to hang a 100k carrot in front of students like that.
Your fanboyness is seriously clouding your judgement. Do some research and you will find that they have problems with almost every product they produce. This isn't unique to them. It's common. The point I'm making is that they are no more perfect than anyone else so get over it. Overall they make good quality stuff but so do many other companies. What of it? Is this guy not alowed to have a problem with his iBook without some fanboy flaming him? Oh yeah, I forgot...clearly he must be a troll...
The reason they are so successful with the iPod is the integration of iTunes and iTMS with the device. It's trivial to get setup and start buying stuff. Even a complete moron can do it. Personally, I never found Rhapsody or MusicMatch all that complicated but Apple puts their stuff together so that it looks pretty and works very nicely together.
What the OP said is right...there's nothing evolutionary about it. They wrote software to work with a specific device...whoopie doo.
Say what you like about it not being religious but do a quick google on it and you will find so many references to their religious nature and origins that it completely closes the argument. I'm sure some chapters of AA are more religious than others, but most are. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals declared it so. You can see a reference here: http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa99042 2.htm
As for the success rates...the generous numbers put it at about 5%. Again, go and google it yourself. Consequently, I dont buy your "I know hundreds of people who have succesfully recovered" bit. Sorry but it's bullshit.
He responded that way because they are, in fact, a pseudo-religious cult. Do the research. Better yet, ask them to provide you statistics of their success rates.:)
One of the first things they tell you is that you can't possibly fix the problem yourself and only God can help you. Personally, I don't see why religion has to be involved with addiction treatments but AA (and other programs modeled after them) do. I have a friend who is a psycologist who specialises in addiction treatment and if you ever want to get a good laugh out of him, just bring up AA.
If I was Ballmer, I would do the same thing. Because instead of everyone bitching about how authoritarian he is, they'd be laughing at the reports of how his own children don't even use Microsoft's shit. And you know it's true...
"Just because we don't have 15 aircraft carriers as the result of overspending on defence like the U.S. doesn't mean that we can't project power. It's not power on the scale of the U.S. granted but we have other priorities and far less GDP to play with."
Spare me the political commentary. I wasn't making any judgements. I was merely stating facts. However, if you like I will be more than happy to go down this road.
"Three aircraft carriers and supporting oilers, supply ships, and troop landing craft all add to it, and are enough to project power enough to defend our interests."
Apparently not. Otherwise, why would you be spending billions on new carriers?
"The reason we're getting new carriers, is because the others will be phased out as the new ones come in. So it's not because we don't have enough carriers."
I believe I stated in previous post that your current carriers are small and old. Do you need me to provide the quote for you?
"I am not sure why you're bringing nukes into this, they aren't launched by carrier so if you can't win an argument without bringing in irrelevancies I suggest you don't join in at all.
I only brought it up because some other posters were saying that the nukes were proof of the ability to project power. I was just making sure that issue was covered.
Finally, you are WAY too hyper-sensitive. Calm down. I wasn't trying to show disrespect for your country.
Oh please...the Falklands? Yeah, if that's your idea of projecting power, then you probably think that electricity demonstrates "advanced technology". Your government feels otherwise. And forget about nukes because we all know you can't really use them. The only purpose of an aircraft carrier is the projection of power and apparently your government feels that your antiquated and tiny aircraft carriers that you currently have don't cut the mustard.
Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical too. I became even more skeptical when I saw in the picture of the lab (in the referred article) a very large tank of HELIUM! I'm not kidding. Check for yourself.
True true. I'm 41 and play all the time. I have friends around the same age and they play too. When you grow up with this shit, I don't see how anyone could expect anything different. When your big choice for the evening is watching Deal or No Deal (wtf?) or playing F.E.A.R., I'll take F.E.A.R. anyday. I'm guessing it will soon be common to see people in retirement homes doing it.
Yes, I'm saying that the Senate should revert to the old way of being elected - by the people indirectly via their elected representatives in their legislatures. The Senate is the house that represents the states at the federal level - how does electing Senators purely by the popular will fulfill that role? Senators should not be beholden directly to the people. (That's a laugh - do you think your senators see themselves personally accountable to you? If anything, they are less accountable.) They should be directly accountable to their state's interests - meaning that the legislature and governor have something to say about it. Accountability to a small group can be advantageous.
Voting makes senators more accountable because they can be voted out of office. If they are appointed, the people have no control whatsoever. I also don't see how, by virtue of appointment, they are suddenly more accountable. Once they are appointed, the still have 6 years to do whatever the hell they want. They are also just as succeptible to cash influences.
It doesn't particularly matter to me if the various states have different ways of electing their Senators. It's their Senator, let them decide how to do it. Why do you want to take control away from them, when it's none of your business?
So, I guess it's ok if they pick based on who makes the best brownies? Appointments do not provide any sort of accountability.
Maybe people with deep pockets were elected Senators pre-17th. But heck, those are the only people being elected now, because they are the only people that can afford to run! I think every single Senator in office today is a millionaire.
This is why I want contribution caps.
The problem is not campaign contributions. Americans spend more on potato chips than we contribute to political campaigns. "Tightening up" the system with more restrictions will not help, but will only further entrench incumbents. The best way to fix the system is to open it up - make voters free to vote for alternatives to the Duopoly (who are mostly interested in maintaining the status quo). Condorcet voting makes alternative parties into realistic options, because there is no such thing as a "wasted vote". Why do we, as Americans, believe there are only two valid points of view? We don't need to reform campaign finance, but the voting system.
It's not the contributions of the average american I care about. It's the PACs and big businesses that I'm concerned about. As for entrenching...that's why I think the government should help with campaign funding. As for multiple parties...I'm all for having more parties. Frankly, the repubs and dems make me sick to my stomach. In any event, they certainly don't represent my views.
Government funding for campaigns is the absolutely worst possible idea. First of all, you'd be letting the people in charge give themselves money so that they can try to stay in charge. What sense does that make? Second, I may disagree with you on every single issue, but if I were a candidate you'd be forced to contribute your money (through taxes) to me - that's unconscionable! It isn't moral nor ethical for me to take your money in this situation. This is why government should be limited to the bare minimum required to perform its essential duties - anything more and you'll encounter unnecessary conflicts of conscience as some people are forced to support things they don't agree with. It's not right to force someone to violate his/her conscience. I believe in this so strongly that I'd refuse government money if I ran for office, even if I qualified for it. This (freedom of conscience) is a big reason I joined the CP [constitutionparty.org].
They already conrol their own salaries, so they already are guarding the preverbial hen house. Tomorrow they could declare that they each get paid $10,000,000 a year and there isn't shit we can do about it but complain. As for your tax money paying for the campaign of a candidate that you don't l
"But the news in my mind isn't a one-second difference in this or that. It's that Apple's machines run Windows comparably to the best designed-for-Windows machines."
Hmm...what exactly do think is different between an Intel box designed to run OSX and one designed to run WinXP? I really don't see how the OS has much sway here. After all, you can run Linux on an Intel box (desinged to run WinXP) and it works hot shit. OSX is based on BSD as I understand it, so why should it be any different?
I'm impressed by the fact that you didn't get pissed off at some of the things I said. I like to push buttons now and then to make it interesting. Perhaps they train you in law school to expect these things.:)
Sorry but I simply don't understand your argument at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that senators should be appointed again by their state legislatures and not elected because that will increase the representation received by a given state. Sorry but I don't buy it. First off, prior to this amendment, legislatures each had their own way of picking senators. It was found that people with deep pockets would frequently be selected as senators. How is that helpful? States with powerful senators (which means they are on powerful subcommittees) get more "representation" than they deserve. Usually this comes in the form of pork projects. Have you heard about Alaska lately? Please.
The problem is simply that we allow large campaign contributions. They should cap them at $100 and additional funding should be provided by the government. The system is fucked simply because we allow industries to fork over millions of dollars to politicians and then somehow expect them to just "do what's right". Yeah, that will work...
That doesn't fix the problem of pork barrel politics but at least it should reduce the amount back scratching that occurs between PACs and senators/representatives.
I have no problem with the notion of class action lawsuits. I do have problems with coupon settlements where the lawyers rake in several million dollars on their contingent fee and the plaintiffs get a coupon for free popcorn. I have no problem with lawyers getting paid on contingency but fairly commonly in the past lawyers have arranged deals with the defendents to quickly settle the deal and they get an assload of money for doing almost nothing while the victims get free popcorn. That I have a problem with. I have no problem with lawyers who have integrity and aren't in it for a quick buck.
Now there's a new law, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, that modifies these rules and how contingency fees are handled. I don't know if it fixes the problem though.
"Yes, I'm only a copyright lawyer, what do I know?"
You can be a copyright lawyer your whole life and never have to deal with the recording industry. Of course, if you do then you (along with the record company, producer, agent, managers, etc.) undoubtedly make more money off the art than the artist but I'm sure you're not in any way biased.:) Want to discuss the fairness of class action suits? Cuz I'm pretty sure we both know who makes all the money on that deal and what happens to the folks who opt out cuz they won't get shit if they win anyway. You can play legalease all day and their actions may be completely legal but it doesn't change the fact that to the average person, it's just a big fucking scam.
Don't feel too bad though...you're just one of many in a long list of folks who don't actually produce anything for this country. You just suck it dry.
*continues to wonder why the smart lawyer guy just doesn't get it...*
Again, what you say looks nice on paper. I even agree with you in principle. However, the way it's played out isn't so simple. You simply don't appear to understand the reality of the recording industry today.
It's written by someone actually in the industry who knows exactly how the game is played. It should be noted that the story in the link is in no way unusual. This is the norm.
"There's no comparison to be made with slavery. No one is forcing artists to work under any conditions the artists are unwilling to agree to. If an artist doesn't like the deal he's offered by an employer, he can go elsewhere; he can self-publish; he can take up a totally different job."
Yeah, this sounds great on paper. Unfortunately, it really does equate to making the choice of either never having a real career in music or agreeing to their rediculous contract terms and taking it totally up the ass. Is it a choice? Yes. Is it a real choice? No. If I told you that I will kill either your son or daughter, which do you pick? Is that a choice? Yes. It is but we both know that neither option is acceptible. With music the choice may not ]be life or death but REAL musicians are artists and you are basically talking about killing their creativity and integrity as such. Have you ever stopped to wonder why music is so stale these days? probably not.
It's because of lawyers like you that we have this kind of system. And I bet you wonder why nobody likes lawyers...
Who cares? Both parties are a complete joke now anyway. I hate Bush but he's done one good thing for this country: he's shown just how bought the entire congress is.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. If you want to do government work, you must have the degree. Of course, they will probably not be forgiving about the type of degree you have either. So, if you have B.A. in English, you're still not gonna have any luck.
Good programmers are always in demand. It's just that there's no room for the fakers anymore. So, if you have the knack for it...you'll be fine. :)
I make 6 figures and I don't even have an associates degree in comp sci. Experience > piece of paper. I have worked with many people with advanced degrees and from what I can tell, it really has no impact on their salaries. They may make a few grand more coming straight out of school but the guy who went into the real world after 4 years will make up for it by having built up experience.
I'm not saying people should not get advanced degrees, I'm merely stating that they shouldn't do it for the money because it just doesn't pay. It's misleading to hang a 100k carrot in front of students like that.
Excuse me...did you just refer to yourself as a Mac gamer? roflmao
If you ever release a comedy CD, let me know.
Wow, you don't even recognize that you're a fanboi. That's the worst kind.
Your fanboyness is seriously clouding your judgement. Do some research and you will find that they have problems with almost every product they produce. This isn't unique to them. It's common. The point I'm making is that they are no more perfect than anyone else so get over it. Overall they make good quality stuff but so do many other companies. What of it? Is this guy not alowed to have a problem with his iBook without some fanboy flaming him? Oh yeah, I forgot...clearly he must be a troll...
The reason they are so successful with the iPod is the integration of iTunes and iTMS with the device. It's trivial to get setup and start buying stuff. Even a complete moron can do it. Personally, I never found Rhapsody or MusicMatch all that complicated but Apple puts their stuff together so that it looks pretty and works very nicely together.
What the OP said is right...there's nothing evolutionary about it. They wrote software to work with a specific device...whoopie doo.
Say what you like about it not being religious but do a quick google on it and you will find so many references to their religious nature and origins that it completely closes the argument. I'm sure some chapters of AA are more religious than others, but most are. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals declared it so. You can see a reference here: http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa99042 2.htm
As for the success rates...the generous numbers put it at about 5%. Again, go and google it yourself. Consequently, I dont buy your "I know hundreds of people who have succesfully recovered" bit. Sorry but it's bullshit.
He responded that way because they are, in fact, a pseudo-religious cult. Do the research. Better yet, ask them to provide you statistics of their success rates. :)
One of the first things they tell you is that you can't possibly fix the problem yourself and only God can help you. Personally, I don't see why religion has to be involved with addiction treatments but AA (and other programs modeled after them) do. I have a friend who is a psycologist who specialises in addiction treatment and if you ever want to get a good laugh out of him, just bring up AA.
If I was Ballmer, I would do the same thing. Because instead of everyone bitching about how authoritarian he is, they'd be laughing at the reports of how his own children don't even use Microsoft's shit. And you know it's true...
It's more secure if you place a drop of blood on it. Then you can, if desired, test the blood on the paper to see if the DNA is unique.
Problem solved...get cracking!
"Just because we don't have 15 aircraft carriers as the result of overspending on defence like the U.S. doesn't mean that we can't project power. It's not power on the scale of the U.S. granted but we have other priorities and far less GDP to play with."
Spare me the political commentary. I wasn't making any judgements. I was merely stating facts. However, if you like I will be more than happy to go down this road.
"Three aircraft carriers and supporting oilers, supply ships, and troop landing craft all add to it, and are enough to project power enough to defend our interests."
Apparently not. Otherwise, why would you be spending billions on new carriers?
"The reason we're getting new carriers, is because the others will be phased out as the new ones come in. So it's not because we don't have enough carriers."
I believe I stated in previous post that your current carriers are small and old. Do you need me to provide the quote for you?
"I am not sure why you're bringing nukes into this, they aren't launched by carrier so if you can't win an argument without bringing in irrelevancies I suggest you don't join in at all.
I only brought it up because some other posters were saying that the nukes were proof of the ability to project power. I was just making sure that issue was covered.
Finally, you are WAY too hyper-sensitive. Calm down. I wasn't trying to show disrespect for your country.
Oh please...the Falklands? Yeah, if that's your idea of projecting power, then you probably think that electricity demonstrates "advanced technology". Your government feels otherwise. And forget about nukes because we all know you can't really use them. The only purpose of an aircraft carrier is the projection of power and apparently your government feels that your antiquated and tiny aircraft carriers that you currently have don't cut the mustard.
This gives them the ability to project power. Which is something England and France cannot currently do.
Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical too. I became even more skeptical when I saw in the picture of the lab (in the referred article) a very large tank of HELIUM! I'm not kidding. Check for yourself.
True true. I'm 41 and play all the time. I have friends around the same age and they play too. When you grow up with this shit, I don't see how anyone could expect anything different. When your big choice for the evening is watching Deal or No Deal (wtf?) or playing F.E.A.R., I'll take F.E.A.R. anyday.
I'm guessing it will soon be common to see people in retirement homes doing it.
Yes, I'm saying that the Senate should revert to the old way of being elected - by the people indirectly via their elected representatives in their legislatures. The Senate is the house that represents the states at the federal level - how does electing Senators purely by the popular will fulfill that role? Senators should not be beholden directly to the people. (That's a laugh - do you think your senators see themselves personally accountable to you? If anything, they are less accountable.) They should be directly accountable to their state's interests - meaning that the legislature and governor have something to say about it. Accountability to a small group can be advantageous.
Voting makes senators more accountable because they can be voted out of office. If they are appointed, the people have no control whatsoever. I also don't see how, by virtue of appointment, they are suddenly more accountable. Once they are appointed, the still have 6 years to do whatever the hell they want. They are also just as succeptible to cash influences.
It doesn't particularly matter to me if the various states have different ways of electing their Senators. It's their Senator, let them decide how to do it. Why do you want to take control away from them, when it's none of your business?
So, I guess it's ok if they pick based on who makes the best brownies? Appointments do not provide any sort of accountability.
Maybe people with deep pockets were elected Senators pre-17th. But heck, those are the only people being elected now, because they are the only people that can afford to run! I think every single Senator in office today is a millionaire.
This is why I want contribution caps.
The problem is not campaign contributions. Americans spend more on potato chips than we contribute to political campaigns. "Tightening up" the system with more restrictions will not help, but will only further entrench incumbents. The best way to fix the system is to open it up - make voters free to vote for alternatives to the Duopoly (who are mostly interested in maintaining the status quo). Condorcet voting makes alternative parties into realistic options, because there is no such thing as a "wasted vote". Why do we, as Americans, believe there are only two valid points of view? We don't need to reform campaign finance, but the voting system.
It's not the contributions of the average american I care about. It's the PACs and big businesses that I'm concerned about. As for entrenching...that's why I think the government should help with campaign funding. As for multiple parties...I'm all for having more parties. Frankly, the repubs and dems make me sick to my stomach. In any event, they certainly don't represent my views.
Government funding for campaigns is the absolutely worst possible idea. First of all, you'd be letting the people in charge give themselves money so that they can try to stay in charge. What sense does that make? Second, I may disagree with you on every single issue, but if I were a candidate you'd be forced to contribute your money (through taxes) to me - that's unconscionable! It isn't moral nor ethical for me to take your money in this situation. This is why government should be limited to the bare minimum required to perform its essential duties - anything more and you'll encounter unnecessary conflicts of conscience as some people are forced to support things they don't agree with. It's not right to force someone to violate his/her conscience. I believe in this so strongly that I'd refuse government money if I ran for office, even if I qualified for it. This (freedom of conscience) is a big reason I joined the CP [constitutionparty.org].
They already conrol their own salaries, so they already are guarding the preverbial hen house. Tomorrow they could declare that they each get paid $10,000,000 a year and there isn't shit we can do about it but complain. As for your tax money paying for the campaign of a candidate that you don't l
"But the news in my mind isn't a one-second difference in this or that. It's that Apple's machines run Windows comparably to the best designed-for-Windows machines."
Hmm...what exactly do think is different between an Intel box designed to run OSX and one designed to run WinXP? I really don't see how the OS has much sway here. After all, you can run Linux on an Intel box (desinged to run WinXP) and it works hot shit. OSX is based on BSD as I understand it, so why should it be any different?
We are in agreement then.
:)
I'm impressed by the fact that you didn't get pissed off at some of the things I said. I like to push buttons now and then to make it interesting. Perhaps they train you in law school to expect these things.
It's been a pleasure arguing with you.
Sorry but I simply don't understand your argument at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that senators should be appointed again by their state legislatures and not elected because that will increase the representation received by a given state. Sorry but I don't buy it. First off, prior to this amendment, legislatures each had their own way of picking senators. It was found that people with deep pockets would frequently be selected as senators. How is that helpful? States with powerful senators (which means they are on powerful subcommittees) get more "representation" than they deserve. Usually this comes in the form of pork projects. Have you heard about Alaska lately? Please.
The problem is simply that we allow large campaign contributions. They should cap them at $100 and additional funding should be provided by the government. The system is fucked simply because we allow industries to fork over millions of dollars to politicians and then somehow expect them to just "do what's right". Yeah, that will work...
That doesn't fix the problem of pork barrel politics but at least it should reduce the amount back scratching that occurs between PACs and senators/representatives.
I have no problem with the notion of class action lawsuits. I do have problems with coupon settlements where the lawyers rake in several million dollars on their contingent fee and the plaintiffs get a coupon for free popcorn. I have no problem with lawyers getting paid on contingency but fairly commonly in the past lawyers have arranged deals with the defendents to quickly settle the deal and they get an assload of money for doing almost nothing while the victims get free popcorn. That I have a problem with. I have no problem with lawyers who have integrity and aren't in it for a quick buck.
Now there's a new law, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, that modifies these rules and how contingency fees are handled. I don't know if it fixes the problem though.
"Yes, I'm only a copyright lawyer, what do I know?"
:) Want to discuss the fairness of class action suits? Cuz I'm pretty sure we both know who makes all the money on that deal and what happens to the folks who opt out cuz they won't get shit if they win anyway. You can play legalease all day and their actions may be completely legal but it doesn't change the fact that to the average person, it's just a big fucking scam.
You can be a copyright lawyer your whole life and never have to deal with the recording industry. Of course, if you do then you (along with the record company, producer, agent, managers, etc.) undoubtedly make more money off the art than the artist but I'm sure you're not in any way biased.
Don't feel too bad though...you're just one of many in a long list of folks who don't actually produce anything for this country. You just suck it dry.
*continues to wonder why the smart lawyer guy just doesn't get it...*
Again, what you say looks nice on paper. I even agree with you in principle. However, the way it's played out isn't so simple. You simply don't appear to understand the reality of the recording industry today.
Read this: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
It's written by someone actually in the industry who knows exactly how the game is played. It should be noted that the story in the link is in no way unusual. This is the norm.
Get out of the paper and get into the reality.
"There's no comparison to be made with slavery. No one is forcing artists to work under any conditions the artists are unwilling to agree to. If an artist doesn't like the deal he's offered by an employer, he can go elsewhere; he can self-publish; he can take up a totally different job."
Yeah, this sounds great on paper. Unfortunately, it really does equate to making the choice of either never having a real career in music or agreeing to their rediculous contract terms and taking it totally up the ass. Is it a choice? Yes. Is it a real choice? No. If I told you that I will kill either your son or daughter, which do you pick? Is that a choice? Yes. It is but we both know that neither option is acceptible. With music the choice may not ]be life or death but REAL musicians are artists and you are basically talking about killing their creativity and integrity as such. Have you ever stopped to wonder why music is so stale these days? probably not.
It's because of lawyers like you that we have this kind of system. And I bet you wonder why nobody likes lawyers...
Who cares? Both parties are a complete joke now anyway. I hate Bush but he's done one good thing for this country: he's shown just how bought the entire congress is.