...instead of looking for a job right now. If you are an undergraduate, go get a Master degree. If you are holding a Master degree, go get a PHD.
If I were you, I'd only go back and continue your education if you have a nice, juicy trust fund, full ride scholarship, or some other way to have someone else pay for it -- only because it's a way to sit around and wait out bad economic times. My experience in this field (as a worker and hiring manager) has been that an advanced degree doesn't always enhance your career. I've found that experience helps far more than advanced degrees (unless you want to teach, or apply for a Computer Scientist position).
As far as geting an internship -- I started at the head-end of the dot-com era...so this may or may not be entirely helpful. I wanted to start working in Boston, so I went to the Career Options Resorce Center at my college and asked them if they knew any alumns or friends of the school that were hiring managers in the area. They gave me a few leads, but what really helped was a book that they had called "How to Get a Job in Boston". They had the book for other cities as well. This book had a number of different fields listed in their own chapters, and in each chapter, they had the name of a hiring manager and their company.
I picked out about 30 of the coolest companies, and sent a resume out. At first, I didn't hear anything and began to lose hope. I took up a temp job, and worked it for a few weeks. Eventually, I started getting a few phone calls, and I eventually started working exactly where I wanted to be. Granted, we're in a different time, so you'll probably have to be a little more aggressive, but this should give you a general idea on where you can start.
I can leagally grow that in my backyard and roll my own ciggeretts. How many people in the US do you know that do _that_ ?
Its cheaper and easier to buy packs at the store.
If pot was legalized, it would become the same thing.
It's totally different than tobacco. Growing your own cannabis is far more akin to brewing your own beer, which is a widely appreciated and accepted hobby.
It is a specious argument at best, that a causal relationship exists between prohibition and organized crime. The government grossly underestimated the task of enforcing the prohibition of alcohol. Today, the DEA budget is 11 billion dollars. That would have been approximately 800 million 1930 dollars. Today, we understand the magnitude of such a task.
Woah! Where should I start...A casual relationship?!? My friend, the two go hand-in-hand. You must have poor sources on this one. Further, we clearly do not understand the magnitude of the task of prohibition. "Druglords" are very smart businesspeople, and are clearly doing well enough to curb our 11 billion dollar effort.
Mayor Laguardia was arguing in favor of a repeal of the 18th amendment when he said "It would take a police force of 250,000 to enforce the Prohibition Act". I wonder how he would respond to today's police force of 650,000?
This is totally irrelevant. 250,000 was a seemingly outlandish number that he threw out as an as example. Further, as a civil libertarian, LaGuardia may have been apalled by the state of our nation and the abuse of the Rico statutes...not to mention the draconian Rockafeller drug laws which have been entirely abusive and ineffective.
Federal drug policy has been a success. Drug use has been reduced by 50% since 1982, and cocaine use alone has declined by 75% since 1987.
You must be smoking crack! Federal drug policy has been a failure since it's inception.
I'm not sure where you get your 50% reduction -- where are the data? If you are using Barry McCaffrey as a reference, the man is an outright liar.
I know of this claim about the drop in cocaine use. It's not the first time the fed has used it to parade their "results". Ronald Regan used it in his '84 campaign -- he claimed responsibility for a huge drop in cocaine. The Late 70's and early 80's were the heyday for cocaine. The reason behind the drop in usage was actually a social trend...this had nothing to do with federal enforcement efforts.
I have a perfect compromise...why don't you just not drink, smoke, or use any other substances that you choose not to use. In my house, I will smoke (and eat) the cannabis that I legally grow and drink beer that I legally brew...all in the privacy of my own home. Doesn't that sound like a reasonable compromise? If not -- please educate me on the harm that I'm doing to society...or, more importantly: Why, prey tell, it's any of your (or the fed's) business at all?
Bah, end of argument, I've wasted enough time on this.
Then why the hell did you start in on me in the first place? You did start in on me -- remember?
I'm not afraid to help others. Though I am upset when the government wastes my hard earned money. We all need to pay much more attention to what they're doing with our taxes
Now here is where we're in total agreement. I feel that we'll split on how to handle this -- I tend to lean towards the Libertarian stance. I feel that the politicians are exactly that, politicians...no matter how wenn intentioned they may seem, they will always fuck us up. They have no business dictating how we live as long as we're not hurting anyone else. Freedom, freedom, freedom, stop wasting my hard-earned dollars on failed social programs and pork -- and leave me the fuck alone!
You wouldn't buy a car because the salesman told you it would pay for his tropical vacation, would you?
Actually, I might actually bite on some honesty for a change. I won't even start in on how car dealerships are a state-maintained monopoly...but it's not like we don't know that they're working on commission -- and when I buy a car from a dealer, it does pay for their tropical vacation. Do you know who buys more yachts than anyone else? Car dealers...but I digress.
Investing in what? Does the corporate executive practice of diluting stock value by issuing massive stock options help? Once a company's stock is sold, can it generate any more revenue for the company (unless you dilute value by issuing more shares).
Well -- first of all, investing decreases reliance on social security, which is a Good Thing, since I don't expect to ever see a dime that I put into that "trust fund". As for stock options -- this gives some equity to the people working at the company, and can greatly increase overall productivity. And as far as diluting value goes, I believe that you're oversimplifing...issuing more shares doesn't necessarily dilute the value if the market perceives a higher value...everybody can win. But you're right -- this is not a black and white issue -- my intention was not to portray that.
In any case, your arguments give me the impression that you were just trolling, and/or just wanted to spew some quasi-socialist ideals at me, so I'll stop here...
Quite simply, the illegal drug paraphernalia industry has invaded the homes of families across the country without their knowledge
WTF is he thinking? Doesn't he have something better to do? Like persuing the further revocation of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. Now, as for the above quote -- it's not like there's a couple of shady guys selling a cases of glass bongs in my mom's living room that she doesn't know about. These are people who are simply trading their wares on the internet -- those wares, in and of themselves, are completely benign. Where the hell does he get this crap? Ashcroft runs the most abusive DOJ that we've had in decades.
Eat my ass, Mr. Ashcroft! Now...anyone wanna buy a glass piece?
Unfortunately, the Grease Car has nothing to do with biodiesel.
You're half-right. Raw vegetable oil is technically not a biodiesel fuel, but if I'm correct, this is a technical issue because used vegetable oil not registered with the EPA as a fuel.
Now -- having nothing to do with biodiesel is where you're half-right. Biodiesel is typically engineered from vegetable oil, and costs more (VinDiesel is engineered from crap). The two are pretty related.
My subject probably should have been: Info on cool stuff related to (but is not the same as) Biodiesel. Unfortunately, I was anxious to get it out -- I've never had a first post before -- sorry.
In any case, the Grease Car is still damn cool, and relevant to the topic (and they smell like french fries when they run, which adds to the cool factor).
Aw come on! This is totally a bunch of liberal trash...and my politics are relatively liberal (although unlike some -- I don't take up liberal causes because its the liberal thing to do). Who is it that's eating your lunch? Well fortunately, you've got your cake...the Bush administration is pulling the Democrat tax and spend crap...one of the few things that I really liked about the Republicans is gone. In any case, I'll refrain from re-hashing ColdFusion's reaming...but there are a few points I wanted to make outside of this post.
Don't forget all the company perks: company housing, cars, food, business trips (read vacations), etc. that don't get reported as income.
Who gets that? I don't know anyone (aside from doctors) who get food and business-trips-as-vacations anymore (my business trips are to the deep south, where I don't think of as vacationland). Company cars should never be reported as income...they're leased and the depreciation is written off! Housing is typically temporary, and more often than not, those temporarily living in company housing have their own rents/mortgages to pay...I fit into that category. Are you suggesting that that stuff should be taxed as personal income anyway just because a few business owners use them to their advantage?
If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc
WTF are you talking about? Look at our budget! These things you mention...peanuts compared to social security (23% of the 2001 budget went to social security!). And let's not forget what the government is doing with that (I believe that the bureaucrats are eating that portion of your lunch, not the rich). Do you also buy in to the Democrat ideal that we shouldn't be able to invest some of that ourselves? (If so, maybe you should go frighten some old people into voting for you while you're at it).
the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money
You're talking percentage-wise. Yes, a lower income family will spend a greater portion of their income...but that, in no way, equals more money. If you think that everyone spends the same amount of money on living costs, etc regardless of income, you're just plain wrong. And let's not forget what investing does for the economy (sorry to rehash ColdFusion's point).
How much do you earn? I'm betting it's not enough to qualify for a real tax break under the new tax scheme.
You're right -- I don't make enough to qualify...but it doesn't blur my judgement enough that I'm out to spite everyone who makes more money than I do. First of all, I appreciate the opporitunity to propser -- it's one of the things that I really like about America. Secondly, I don't care much for socialism -- I don't believe that people should be penalized for financial success...it's bullshit.
Now who is buying whose crap -- and I'm afraid that that stink is not coming from my general direction. Tell you what. When you bust your ass for long enough that you're doing well -- you go pay more taxes. I'll hang on to my income.
And still today, most of the people who get "elected" don't care about what their people want, they only care about getting what the rich people want (example: tax cuts for the rich? how bout tax cuts for the poor, and tax the shit out of the rich? sounds fair to me, those who can give, give).
OK -- I think that your example is a little full of shit. Here's why.
A. I see this kind of thinking all the time now -- I went to a super-liberal college where this kind of thinking was the norm -- and with these arguments, the logical conclusion is always that the rich are eating our lunch. You don't define rich. A person who makes $50,000 a year is by no-means rich. Especially depending on where they live...a New Yorker or a San Franciscian making $50K a year is very far from rich...but the IRS is blind to this. However, by tax law and by statistical averages, a single person making $50,000 a year is in the top 5-10% range of American incomes. Do that person deserve more or less taxation?
B. OK -- a rich tax cut vs. a poor tax cut. We already have a graduated income tax, which is supposed to make things more equal...giving the so-called rich a tax cut is only serving to flatten out the taxes. They'll still be paying more (percentage-wise, and dollar-wise) than the poor. Again, is tax relief still unfair?
C. Let's examine what the poor are doing for the economy vs. the wealthy. Wealth drives our economy. Buying stuff makes our business work (in fact, if nobody bought stuff -- we wouldn't have an economy)...when our businesses work, it bolsters our economy and creates more jobs. More jobs make the workforce more competitive and increase wages. Higher wages equal more wealth -- poorer people are richer, and the government gets more tax-revenue just by lowering taxes on the rich.
D. Which people are using more of the government services generated by the tax revenue -- the rich, or the poor? Now, who pays more for those services, the rich or the poor? Who deserves a tax cut now?
OK -- you've got some socialist ideals because you mean well...that's fine. I am no economics scholar, but I do know that economics go a little farther than what seems fair at face value. While I find the principle of your post interesting (actually, a republic and representative democracy are totally different...but I tend to agree that businesses and related insterests are over-represented, and the individual's goals tend to be under-represented) your example is indicitative of the typical Slashdotter mentality.
I am not trying to attack you, but your example seems a little short-sighted and makes me believe that you haven't put alot of thought into this. Let me know if you think that this is elitist bullshit...it very well could be, but I think that all in all, it seems pretty fair and realistic.
I have a couple of things I'd say to 12-year-old self:
Beating off as much as you do is not abnormal
You must tell girls how you feel -- there's nothing to lose (but don't tell then that you were thinking about them when you were beating off last night...and this morning...and again this morning)
how safe is this plastic for the environment? is it recyclable?
Maybe the question should be: How harmful is the current paint process to the envorinment? (The answer to that is very much so -- probably the most harmful of any part of the car-building process...including the actual driving part for about 50,000 miles). The logical followup is: Compared with the current paint process, how safe is the plastic technique? Is it as recyclable as steel?
Metal-bodied cars do not just rust. Your typical surface scratch into a base layer of wax or paint should never just rust in a modern car (ie door dings) if properly cleaned and touched-up. Sure, many vintage cars do not benefit from today's modern galvonization techniques and tend to rot, but you should never have rust problems in a modern car unless its been in a serious accident. This is why almost all modern cars come with a 10-year 100,000 mile (or even unlimited mileage) rust warranty. The manufacturers know this -- they wouldn't bet the bank on it otherwise. I'm afraid that Saturns that have been crashed will also experience rust problems as the internal components are made of steel (the frame, floorpan, etc) and will rust if bent or damaged...just like on any other car.
In a minor fender-bender, provided that there is no frame damage, if you take your steel-bodied car to a competent body shop -- it will not rust. Furthermore, most manufacturers have moved to fiberglass and painted plastic for the lower body-panels...which also do not rust.
Yes, the Saturn approach is innovative, and I'm glad that it has treated you well...but like you said, every material has its drawbacks.
(Didn't Audi have to set up its own network of trusted body shops before the introduction of the latest aluminum-bodied A6, then offer free flatbed service to new owners, b/c typical body shops didn't have the right equipment and expertise?)
Yes, they did have to do set up a special network...and those cars all have to be flat-bedded in to them since all of their care are AWD. Since the aluminum body an the A6 and A8 series are space frame designs, collision repairs are far more expensive than conventional cars are. A minor accident may land your car in a frame shop (expensive repair) to get straightened out and your car may still never drive right again.
This sounds an awful lot like the drug testing argument.
Here's the deal. (first, I should state that IANAL). Your prospective employer is well within their rights to require a credit check...the same way that they're well within their rights to require a drug test, or even going so far as insisting that their employees be non-smokers if they want to.
They're a private company and you're a private individual -- you both have your policies, and if they conflict, I'm afraid that your only recourse is to agree to disagree and simply part ways. I suppopse that if you have some serious fuck-you money you can hire an attourney and sue for class/financial discrimination or something...but I feel that this is just on a similar level as pre-employment credit checks and drug testing.
FWIW, I think that this type of checking crosses the same line that drug testing does (I could write a book on the evils of mandatory workplace drug testing). Its simply none of their business, and further, the results yielded sill show no discernable effect on your performance. If nobody would take a position at companies with disagreeable hiring policies, the world might be a better place. However, you need to keep in mind that there will always be someone who is happy to submit to the checks and take on the position that you wouldn't. This is especially true in a depressed economy such as the current one. Take a look at how quickly companies are able to take on scabs during a strike.
The bottom line: If you're jobless and desperately need employment -- now might be a good time to compromise your principles. If you've got a good job, are in a good job market, or have sufficient funds to hold out -- explain that it's none of their business and your conditions are non-negotiable...and if need be, just walk away. Just remember not to burn your bridges behind you.
Ideally, it should work that way. But in my experience, both sides need to be open. Maybe they've changed their clients since the last time I tried. I'll have to try it again.
Problem is allowing IM and diallowing file transfers.
This is not a problem. Most firewalls (particularly NAT-based firewalls) will not allow file transfers via AIM since it requires a new, direct, P2P connection be established. I know from experience that a Cisco PIX firewall (at least with the default ruleset) will not allow file transfers, nor will a Linux IPTables with a NAT or stateful ruleset.
Well, tape backups notwithstanding (they are they only reliable form of removable magnetic media). Correction: Never use random-access removable magnetic media. How else to backup your data? See this article.
Wow -- about time! I've been trying to warn people off of floppies for the past 5 years. Just say no to removable magnetic media. You will lose your data.
I'm still not sure that it would have made good financial sense to send four up at once -- only because you make some assumptions that may not be 100% reliable.
Given the ~15-year lifespan of the HST, there may be a chance that regardless of use, the telescope(s) may deteriorate in space (see this semi-related article) and require regular service as part of the design. This, however, is speculation -- there's a good chance that you know far more about this than I do.
Your argument is very compelling, but I'm not totally convinced. But it does raise some very interesting questions for me.
Why would NASA use the Shuttle to deploy the HST if it wasn't necessary? Was it done just to draw more attention to the project? Would it have been cost effective to have built another (in lieu of reparing the original) and launch it via an unmanned rocket? right after the reiaprs, the HST began making new scientific discoveries. After weighing in the time necessary for a redesign/rebuild/unmanned-launch against the scientific findings that happened in the (potential) time saved by the manned repair mission, did we benefit or lose in the end?
Just some stuff that's left in the back of my mind...thanks for the info...very intriguing.
...and mapping out new territories (which the Hubble does better than the STS ever could, and the Hubble could've ridden a rocket to space)...
Actually, I believe that the Hubble Space Telescope is an excellent argument for manned space travel/exploration. (I'm sure you remember) due to the engineering failures of HST's lense(s), the telescope was literally crippled and was essentially a multi-billion dollar turd travelling at extremely high speed around our planet. It would have stayed that way, had it not been for manned space travel. NASA spent many, many man hours making repairs to HST, essentially saving the program.
Let's also not forget about the Apollo program (not trying to pat the red white and blue on the back for a 30-year-old accomplishment). The Apollo program was arguably the peak of American space exploration. Without sending human to the moon, we never would have left with such a wealth of data. Apollo arguably put the world's eyes on America -- and I believe that its success may have led to the ISS, which really has brought countries together in a form of mutual respect.
Fast forward to Mars. Think about what we could learn about our solar system, planet, and potentially origin from a manned mission to mars. Remember that most robots cannot collect data the way a human can -- and robots are simply not as "interactive" (for lack of a better term).
Now, I know that you were simply playing devil's advocate -- but your HST example stuck out as a very soft argument. Further, I believe that the highlights of the American space program speak for themselves.
Another idea, if he's goign to stick with Naturally Speaking, is to use a text-to-braille converter (assuming he can read braille) for the training sessions.
Here is a link to a page that discusses some of those braille output technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were you, I'd only go back and continue your education if you have a nice, juicy trust fund, full ride scholarship, or some other way to have someone else pay for it -- only because it's a way to sit around and wait out bad economic times. My experience in this field (as a worker and hiring manager) has been that an advanced degree doesn't always enhance your career. I've found that experience helps far more than advanced degrees (unless you want to teach, or apply for a Computer Scientist position).
As far as geting an internship -- I started at the head-end of the dot-com era...so this may or may not be entirely helpful. I wanted to start working in Boston, so I went to the Career Options Resorce Center at my college and asked them if they knew any alumns or friends of the school that were hiring managers in the area. They gave me a few leads, but what really helped was a book that they had called "How to Get a Job in Boston". They had the book for other cities as well. This book had a number of different fields listed in their own chapters, and in each chapter, they had the name of a hiring manager and their company.
I picked out about 30 of the coolest companies, and sent a resume out. At first, I didn't hear anything and began to lose hope. I took up a temp job, and worked it for a few weeks. Eventually, I started getting a few phone calls, and I eventually started working exactly where I wanted to be. Granted, we're in a different time, so you'll probably have to be a little more aggressive, but this should give you a general idea on where you can start.
It's totally different than tobacco. Growing your own cannabis is far more akin to brewing your own beer, which is a widely appreciated and accepted hobby.
Woah! Where should I start...A casual relationship?!? My friend, the two go hand-in-hand. You must have poor sources on this one. Further, we clearly do not understand the magnitude of the task of prohibition. "Druglords" are very smart businesspeople, and are clearly doing well enough to curb our 11 billion dollar effort.
This is totally irrelevant. 250,000 was a seemingly outlandish number that he threw out as an as example. Further, as a civil libertarian, LaGuardia may have been apalled by the state of our nation and the abuse of the Rico statutes...not to mention the draconian Rockafeller drug laws which have been entirely abusive and ineffective.
You must be smoking crack! Federal drug policy has been a failure since it's inception.
I'm not sure where you get your 50% reduction -- where are the data? If you are using Barry McCaffrey as a reference, the man is an outright liar.
I know of this claim about the drop in cocaine use. It's not the first time the fed has used it to parade their "results". Ronald Regan used it in his '84 campaign -- he claimed responsibility for a huge drop in cocaine. The Late 70's and early 80's were the heyday for cocaine. The reason behind the drop in usage was actually a social trend...this had nothing to do with federal enforcement efforts.
I have a perfect compromise...why don't you just not drink, smoke, or use any other substances that you choose not to use. In my house, I will smoke (and eat) the cannabis that I legally grow and drink beer that I legally brew...all in the privacy of my own home. Doesn't that sound like a reasonable compromise? If not -- please educate me on the harm that I'm doing to society...or, more importantly: Why, prey tell, it's any of your (or the fed's) business at all?
Then why the hell did you start in on me in the first place? You did start in on me -- remember?
Now here is where we're in total agreement. I feel that we'll split on how to handle this -- I tend to lean towards the Libertarian stance. I feel that the politicians are exactly that, politicians...no matter how wenn intentioned they may seem, they will always fuck us up. They have no business dictating how we live as long as we're not hurting anyone else. Freedom, freedom, freedom, stop wasting my hard-earned dollars on failed social programs and pork -- and leave me the fuck alone! Actually, I might actually bite on some honesty for a change. I won't even start in on how car dealerships are a state-maintained monopoly...but it's not like we don't know that they're working on commission -- and when I buy a car from a dealer, it does pay for their tropical vacation. Do you know who buys more yachts than anyone else? Car dealers...but I digress. Well -- first of all, investing decreases reliance on social security, which is a Good Thing, since I don't expect to ever see a dime that I put into that "trust fund". As for stock options -- this gives some equity to the people working at the company, and can greatly increase overall productivity. And as far as diluting value goes, I believe that you're oversimplifing...issuing more shares doesn't necessarily dilute the value if the market perceives a higher value...everybody can win. But you're right -- this is not a black and white issue -- my intention was not to portray that.In any case, your arguments give me the impression that you were just trolling, and/or just wanted to spew some quasi-socialist ideals at me, so I'll stop here...
WTF is he thinking? Doesn't he have something better to do? Like persuing the further revocation of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. Now, as for the above quote -- it's not like there's a couple of shady guys selling a cases of glass bongs in my mom's living room that she doesn't know about. These are people who are simply trading their wares on the internet -- those wares, in and of themselves, are completely benign. Where the hell does he get this crap? Ashcroft runs the most abusive DOJ that we've had in decades.
Eat my ass, Mr. Ashcroft! Now...anyone wanna buy a glass piece?
You're half-right. Raw vegetable oil is technically not a biodiesel fuel, but if I'm correct, this is a technical issue because used vegetable oil not registered with the EPA as a fuel.
Now -- having nothing to do with biodiesel is where you're half-right. Biodiesel is typically engineered from vegetable oil, and costs more (VinDiesel is engineered from crap). The two are pretty related.
My subject probably should have been: Info on cool stuff related to (but is not the same as) Biodiesel. Unfortunately, I was anxious to get it out -- I've never had a first post before -- sorry.
In any case, the Grease Car is still damn cool, and relevant to the topic (and they smell like french fries when they run, which adds to the cool factor).
Anyway -- I stand corrected.
For other really intersting biodiesel info, check out The Grease Car
Aw come on! This is totally a bunch of liberal trash...and my politics are relatively liberal (although unlike some -- I don't take up liberal causes because its the liberal thing to do). Who is it that's eating your lunch? Well fortunately, you've got your cake...the Bush administration is pulling the Democrat tax and spend crap...one of the few things that I really liked about the Republicans is gone. In any case, I'll refrain from re-hashing ColdFusion's reaming...but there are a few points I wanted to make outside of this post.
Who gets that? I don't know anyone (aside from doctors) who get food and business-trips-as-vacations anymore (my business trips are to the deep south, where I don't think of as vacationland). Company cars should never be reported as income...they're leased and the depreciation is written off! Housing is typically temporary, and more often than not, those temporarily living in company housing have their own rents/mortgages to pay...I fit into that category. Are you suggesting that that stuff should be taxed as personal income anyway just because a few business owners use them to their advantage? WTF are you talking about? Look at our budget! These things you mention...peanuts compared to social security (23% of the 2001 budget went to social security!). And let's not forget what the government is doing with that (I believe that the bureaucrats are eating that portion of your lunch, not the rich). Do you also buy in to the Democrat ideal that we shouldn't be able to invest some of that ourselves? (If so, maybe you should go frighten some old people into voting for you while you're at it). You're talking percentage-wise. Yes, a lower income family will spend a greater portion of their income...but that, in no way, equals more money. If you think that everyone spends the same amount of money on living costs, etc regardless of income, you're just plain wrong. And let's not forget what investing does for the economy (sorry to rehash ColdFusion's point). You're right -- I don't make enough to qualify...but it doesn't blur my judgement enough that I'm out to spite everyone who makes more money than I do. First of all, I appreciate the opporitunity to propser -- it's one of the things that I really like about America. Secondly, I don't care much for socialism -- I don't believe that people should be penalized for financial success...it's bullshit.Now who is buying whose crap -- and I'm afraid that that stink is not coming from my general direction. Tell you what. When you bust your ass for long enough that you're doing well -- you go pay more taxes. I'll hang on to my income.
Are baseballs more advantageous than say, cricket balls, tennis balls, racket balls, or golf balls?
How so?
OK -- I think that your example is a little full of shit. Here's why.
A. I see this kind of thinking all the time now -- I went to a super-liberal college where this kind of thinking was the norm -- and with these arguments, the logical conclusion is always that the rich are eating our lunch. You don't define rich. A person who makes $50,000 a year is by no-means rich. Especially depending on where they live...a New Yorker or a San Franciscian making $50K a year is very far from rich...but the IRS is blind to this. However, by tax law and by statistical averages, a single person making $50,000 a year is in the top 5-10% range of American incomes. Do that person deserve more or less taxation?
B. OK -- a rich tax cut vs. a poor tax cut. We already have a graduated income tax, which is supposed to make things more equal...giving the so-called rich a tax cut is only serving to flatten out the taxes. They'll still be paying more (percentage-wise, and dollar-wise) than the poor. Again, is tax relief still unfair?
C. Let's examine what the poor are doing for the economy vs. the wealthy. Wealth drives our economy. Buying stuff makes our business work (in fact, if nobody bought stuff -- we wouldn't have an economy)...when our businesses work, it bolsters our economy and creates more jobs. More jobs make the workforce more competitive and increase wages. Higher wages equal more wealth -- poorer people are richer, and the government gets more tax-revenue just by lowering taxes on the rich.
D. Which people are using more of the government services generated by the tax revenue -- the rich, or the poor? Now, who pays more for those services, the rich or the poor? Who deserves a tax cut now?
OK -- you've got some socialist ideals because you mean well...that's fine. I am no economics scholar, but I do know that economics go a little farther than what seems fair at face value. While I find the principle of your post interesting (actually, a republic and representative democracy are totally different...but I tend to agree that businesses and related insterests are over-represented, and the individual's goals tend to be under-represented) your example is indicitative of the typical Slashdotter mentality.
I am not trying to attack you, but your example seems a little short-sighted and makes me believe that you haven't put alot of thought into this. Let me know if you think that this is elitist bullshit...it very well could be, but I think that all in all, it seems pretty fair and realistic.
Holy smokes! Where did you read that? Please post a link.
I have a couple of things I'd say to 12-year-old self:
Maybe the question should be: How harmful is the current paint process to the envorinment? (The answer to that is very much so -- probably the most harmful of any part of the car-building process...including the actual driving part for about 50,000 miles). The logical followup is: Compared with the current paint process, how safe is the plastic technique? Is it as recyclable as steel?
Metal-bodied cars do not just rust. Your typical surface scratch into a base layer of wax or paint should never just rust in a modern car (ie door dings) if properly cleaned and touched-up. Sure, many vintage cars do not benefit from today's modern galvonization techniques and tend to rot, but you should never have rust problems in a modern car unless its been in a serious accident. This is why almost all modern cars come with a 10-year 100,000 mile (or even unlimited mileage) rust warranty. The manufacturers know this -- they wouldn't bet the bank on it otherwise. I'm afraid that Saturns that have been crashed will also experience rust problems as the internal components are made of steel (the frame, floorpan, etc) and will rust if bent or damaged...just like on any other car.
In a minor fender-bender, provided that there is no frame damage, if you take your steel-bodied car to a competent body shop -- it will not rust. Furthermore, most manufacturers have moved to fiberglass and painted plastic for the lower body-panels...which also do not rust.
Yes, the Saturn approach is innovative, and I'm glad that it has treated you well...but like you said, every material has its drawbacks.
Yes, they did have to do set up a special network...and those cars all have to be flat-bedded in to them since all of their care are AWD. Since the aluminum body an the A6 and A8 series are space frame designs, collision repairs are far more expensive than conventional cars are. A minor accident may land your car in a frame shop (expensive repair) to get straightened out and your car may still never drive right again.
This sounds an awful lot like the drug testing argument.
Here's the deal. (first, I should state that IANAL). Your prospective employer is well within their rights to require a credit check...the same way that they're well within their rights to require a drug test, or even going so far as insisting that their employees be non-smokers if they want to.
They're a private company and you're a private individual -- you both have your policies, and if they conflict, I'm afraid that your only recourse is to agree to disagree and simply part ways. I suppopse that if you have some serious fuck-you money you can hire an attourney and sue for class/financial discrimination or something...but I feel that this is just on a similar level as pre-employment credit checks and drug testing.
FWIW, I think that this type of checking crosses the same line that drug testing does (I could write a book on the evils of mandatory workplace drug testing). Its simply none of their business, and further, the results yielded sill show no discernable effect on your performance. If nobody would take a position at companies with disagreeable hiring policies, the world might be a better place. However, you need to keep in mind that there will always be someone who is happy to submit to the checks and take on the position that you wouldn't. This is especially true in a depressed economy such as the current one. Take a look at how quickly companies are able to take on scabs during a strike.
The bottom line: If you're jobless and desperately need employment -- now might be a good time to compromise your principles. If you've got a good job, are in a good job market, or have sufficient funds to hold out -- explain that it's none of their business and your conditions are non-negotiable...and if need be, just walk away. Just remember not to burn your bridges behind you.
I wish you the best of luck.
Ideally, it should work that way. But in my experience, both sides need to be open. Maybe they've changed their clients since the last time I tried. I'll have to try it again.
This is not a problem. Most firewalls (particularly NAT-based firewalls) will not allow file transfers via AIM since it requires a new, direct, P2P connection be established. I know from experience that a Cisco PIX firewall (at least with the default ruleset) will not allow file transfers, nor will a Linux IPTables with a NAT or stateful ruleset.
Well, tape backups notwithstanding (they are they only reliable form of removable magnetic media). Correction: Never use random-access removable magnetic media. How else to backup your data? See this article.
Wow -- about time! I've been trying to warn people off of floppies for the past 5 years. Just say no to removable magnetic media. You will lose your data.
OK, I see where you're coming from.
I'm still not sure that it would have made good financial sense to send four up at once -- only because you make some assumptions that may not be 100% reliable.
Given the ~15-year lifespan of the HST, there may be a chance that regardless of use, the telescope(s) may deteriorate in space (see this semi-related article) and require regular service as part of the design. This, however, is speculation -- there's a good chance that you know far more about this than I do.
Your argument is very compelling, but I'm not totally convinced. But it does raise some very interesting questions for me.
Why would NASA use the Shuttle to deploy the HST if it wasn't necessary? Was it done just to draw more attention to the project? Would it have been cost effective to have built another (in lieu of reparing the original) and launch it via an unmanned rocket? right after the reiaprs, the HST began making new scientific discoveries. After weighing in the time necessary for a redesign/rebuild/unmanned-launch against the scientific findings that happened in the (potential) time saved by the manned repair mission, did we benefit or lose in the end?
Just some stuff that's left in the back of my mind...thanks for the info...very intriguing.
I stand corrected.
How about some $ figures?
Actually, I believe that the Hubble Space Telescope is an excellent argument for manned space travel/exploration. (I'm sure you remember) due to the engineering failures of HST's lense(s), the telescope was literally crippled and was essentially a multi-billion dollar turd travelling at extremely high speed around our planet. It would have stayed that way, had it not been for manned space travel. NASA spent many, many man hours making repairs to HST, essentially saving the program.
Let's also not forget about the Apollo program (not trying to pat the red white and blue on the back for a 30-year-old accomplishment). The Apollo program was arguably the peak of American space exploration. Without sending human to the moon, we never would have left with such a wealth of data. Apollo arguably put the world's eyes on America -- and I believe that its success may have led to the ISS, which really has brought countries together in a form of mutual respect.
Fast forward to Mars. Think about what we could learn about our solar system, planet, and potentially origin from a manned mission to mars. Remember that most robots cannot collect data the way a human can -- and robots are simply not as "interactive" (for lack of a better term).
Now, I know that you were simply playing devil's advocate -- but your HST example stuck out as a very soft argument. Further, I believe that the highlights of the American space program speak for themselves.
Another idea, if he's goign to stick with Naturally Speaking, is to use a text-to-braille converter (assuming he can read braille) for the training sessions.
Here is a link to a page that discusses some of those braille output technologies.
Hope this helpsIt sounds like Jim is cutting off his nose to spite his face.