Many countries are gaining in these areas yet the US is going to see many baby boomers retiring. With more retiring and fewer young adults going in this fields because of cuts in financial aid and increasing tuition costs, the US is in for a rude awakening.
I'd actually go a different route with this - it's not that education has gotten too expensive. (I mean, it has, but except for applying to a military academy & working your way up to O-5 or higher, decent pay isn't too be had without going to a college.) It's the job security aspect.
A few years ago, when I had a select a major, I looked at my older brother, and brothers-in-law... most of them with some kind of engineering degree. Do you know what I saw? I saw men in their early 30's, with kids, and not knowing if the next round of layoffs would hit them.
But other relatives, in the accounting, actuarial, and medical fields, all seemed unworried about layoffs.
So being that I was thinking mostly about the future, which would you choose?
It's extremely easy, I have no idea why the US Government doesn't do it.
The problem is, the "US Government" is dozens of departments, with hundreds of different divisions inside of some of those departments... and that's not counting the military.
A lot of parts of the federal government do exactly what you describe... but it's not a consistent thing throughout, nor should it be, really.
For instance, in one of the (U.S. Navy) office buildings I've done work in, where they have normal (for the military) 0700-1600 work hours, they have firewalls with site blockers, and the like. But go to another base a few miles away, and you'll be able to surf pretty much whatever you want. It's still against policy to look at porn or gamble, but there's nothing actually stopping you from doing so. And that's within the same organization...
But to address another issue... what exactly are these people doing? If these are workers in an office, and they're spending an hour a day, during the normal workday, looking at Ebay, they should be reprimanded. But if this is a park ranger, or an emergency worker, just sitting by his desk, with nothing to do until a call comes in... then what productivity are you really affecting?
Intel officer's question: What's at 122 degree 33 minutes 12.24 seconds west x 14 degrees 41 minutes 18.81 seconds south?
M109 crew answer: Sir, that's the middle of a big freakin' hole.
Back on topic, though... it's been the case, for awhile, that if the U.S. knew where an enemy was, it could turn it into a fine mist (or a small puddle of slag), either with small arms, conventional artillery, smart bombs, nukes, whatever.
A mass driver in Utah that can drop a five-ton block of tungsten anywhere in the world, even if it is perfectly accurate, doesn't do much to change that equation. It makes it cheaper, true, and it means more infrastructure in the US and less overseas. Which means less U.S. servicemembers in a position to get killed. (Which, being one, I'm all for.) But without good intel, the most advanced weapon in the world isn't going to do you any good.
Not to mention it seemed much harder to get injured when one was ten. Watch almost any 30something dad trying to keep up with his eight year old kid on a bike, and you'll see what I mean before too long...
But when the original press release includes details that are so obviously at odds with the source material... one has to wonder, why did they even pay for the rights to use the name in the first place?
When the holder of the license goes "Well, we sold them rights to use the name & backstory, and we didn't demand creative control, or even a veto right... So when they showed us some of the working code, and we were like "That's not our game", they said, "Tough shit." " a fan of the original story doesn't have to see it to know it's not going to be what they hoped for.
It's less like Peter Jackson deleting a few chapters & consolidating a few characters, and more like if he made Frodo kill Sauron with a Ring-powered toothpick.
Unless, of course, it was like a one-way mirror - lets about 5% of the light through. If you were completely incased, your eyes would quickly adjust to your new light level - in daytime, it would still be much brighter than being inside your house with a 50-watt bulb.
It would depend on the conditions, though - in a rural setting, letting 95% of the light through would be fine at any reasonable distance (20-50 ft or so) - the slight distortion of colors or bending of a line isn't too easy to spot when colors are gradient and lines are curves.
In an urban setting, though, you'd be more likely to notice the distortion around a 95% invisible object if it was passing between you and a straight line, like the edge of a building, or making one portion of the car across the street appear a different color.
But combined with current stealth techniques (sticking to shadows, stay in buildings, etc.) this would be a tremendous advantage to the equipped force. Probably not quite as much as, say, power armor, but DARPA's got money going into that, too.
Considering that REM has used the words "we", "the", "on", and "are" in almost every one of their songs, counting an individual word as part of the lyrics makes it effectively impossible to meet that condition.
Well, true, the lame-duck president can go out and pardon every other person in his administration, if he so wishes, before his successors takes office.
But he can't pardon himself... had Nixon lost an election, instead of resigning and being replaced by Ford, he probably would have been indicted over the Watergate coverup... And pardoning Nixon was one of the main issues people had with Ford... had he not done so, maybe he could have stayed in office.
In this case, though, it would require the Democratic party to come up with a viable candidate in 2008. If they nominate Mrs. Clinton, it would be tantamount to begging "please make us even less relevant than we are now!"
Depending on how the question was phrased, it may have said something like "attempt" or "try", instead of "successful complete a troubleshooting task." I hate seeing results to a survey without seeing the survey, personally, for this exact reason.
otherwise, there really just interested in taking MY money for THIER priorities.
Unless I'm very mistaken, the original post was about a general tax increae, being used not for a particular (social/military/whatever) program, but instead to prevent greater debt, and therefore greater interest charges in the future. Which is just fiscal responsibility. And I didn't get anything from his post implying that he was against paying higher taxes himself- but for me, at least, fairness (or at least an attempt at it) is a more important value to a government program than fiscal responsibility.
But then, of course, we get into the realm of what's fair in regards to taxes... and I'm much to tired already to get into that debate tonight.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying Mr. Heinleinwas wrong?
I mean, kinda.
I'd actually go a different route with this - it's not that education has gotten too expensive. (I mean, it has, but except for applying to a military academy & working your way up to O-5 or higher, decent pay isn't too be had without going to a college.) It's the job security aspect.
A few years ago, when I had a select a major, I looked at my older brother, and brothers-in-law... most of them with some kind of engineering degree. Do you know what I saw? I saw men in their early 30's, with kids, and not knowing if the next round of layoffs would hit them.
But other relatives, in the accounting, actuarial, and medical fields, all seemed unworried about layoffs.
So being that I was thinking mostly about the future, which would you choose?
Why aren't I working there? (And do they need anyone working towards an acturial associateship?)
Dude, give it up. You lost, already. To an AC, at that...
The problem is, the "US Government" is dozens of departments, with hundreds of different divisions inside of some of those departments... and that's not counting the military.
A lot of parts of the federal government do exactly what you describe... but it's not a consistent thing throughout, nor should it be, really.
For instance, in one of the (U.S. Navy) office buildings I've done work in, where they have normal (for the military) 0700-1600 work hours, they have firewalls with site blockers, and the like. But go to another base a few miles away, and you'll be able to surf pretty much whatever you want. It's still against policy to look at porn or gamble, but there's nothing actually stopping you from doing so. And that's within the same organization...
But to address another issue... what exactly are these people doing? If these are workers in an office, and they're spending an hour a day, during the normal workday, looking at Ebay, they should be reprimanded. But if this is a park ranger, or an emergency worker, just sitting by his desk, with nothing to do until a call comes in... then what productivity are you really affecting?
M109 crew answer: Sir, that's the middle of a big freakin' hole.
Back on topic, though... it's been the case, for awhile, that if the U.S. knew where an enemy was, it could turn it into a fine mist (or a small puddle of slag), either with small arms, conventional artillery, smart bombs, nukes, whatever.
A mass driver in Utah that can drop a five-ton block of tungsten anywhere in the world, even if it is perfectly accurate, doesn't do much to change that equation. It makes it cheaper, true, and it means more infrastructure in the US and less overseas. Which means less U.S. servicemembers in a position to get killed. (Which, being one, I'm all for.) But without good intel, the most advanced weapon in the world isn't going to do you any good.
You've never done any work for the federal government before, have you?
He would have eaten them.
Not to mention it seemed much harder to get injured when one was ten. Watch almost any 30something dad trying to keep up with his eight year old kid on a bike, and you'll see what I mean before too long...
if Mr. Prachett would be kind enough to sue them for that?
I don't think I want (or need) the explanation behind that one.
You do realize you're on slashdot, right?
When the holder of the license goes "Well, we sold them rights to use the name & backstory, and we didn't demand creative control, or even a veto right... So when they showed us some of the working code, and we were like "That's not our game", they said, "Tough shit." " a fan of the original story doesn't have to see it to know it's not going to be what they hoped for.
It's less like Peter Jackson deleting a few chapters & consolidating a few characters, and more like if he made Frodo kill Sauron with a Ring-powered toothpick.
No, I mean "current" as in "being in use at the present time". "Current" doesn't mean new, just that it's still used.
Unless, of course, it was like a one-way mirror - lets about 5% of the light through. If you were completely incased, your eyes would quickly adjust to your new light level - in daytime, it would still be much brighter than being inside your house with a 50-watt bulb.
In an urban setting, though, you'd be more likely to notice the distortion around a 95% invisible object if it was passing between you and a straight line, like the edge of a building, or making one portion of the car across the street appear a different color.
But combined with current stealth techniques (sticking to shadows, stay in buildings, etc.) this would be a tremendous advantage to the equipped force. Probably not quite as much as, say, power armor, but DARPA's got money going into that, too.
The survey was specificly about privacy concerns, not quality of service or anything else.
Considering that REM has used the words "we", "the", "on", and "are" in almost every one of their songs, counting an individual word as part of the lyrics makes it effectively impossible to meet that condition.
But he can't pardon himself... had Nixon lost an election, instead of resigning and being replaced by Ford, he probably would have been indicted over the Watergate coverup... And pardoning Nixon was one of the main issues people had with Ford... had he not done so, maybe he could have stayed in office.
In this case, though, it would require the Democratic party to come up with a viable candidate in 2008. If they nominate Mrs. Clinton, it would be tantamount to begging "please make us even less relevant than we are now!"
True, but in a survey, who's going to admit to having made the problems worse, eh?
In what direction?
Also, does it play MP3's?
Depending on how the question was phrased, it may have said something like "attempt" or "try", instead of "successful complete a troubleshooting task." I hate seeing results to a survey without seeing the survey, personally, for this exact reason.
Welcome our (not-so) new psychotic rabbity-thing overlords.
Good point. Mea culpa.
Unless I'm very mistaken, the original post was about a general tax increae, being used not for a particular (social/military/whatever) program, but instead to prevent greater debt, and therefore greater interest charges in the future. Which is just fiscal responsibility. And I didn't get anything from his post implying that he was against paying higher taxes himself- but for me, at least, fairness (or at least an attempt at it) is a more important value to a government program than fiscal responsibility.
But then, of course, we get into the realm of what's fair in regards to taxes... and I'm much to tired already to get into that debate tonight.