If you're intelligent enough, broad-minded enough, and ethical enough to be in science and be good at it, how could you possibly have political views anywhere right of center?
And you're so broad-minded that you think it's impossible.
Liberal-mindedness isn't the same a politically left. It is possible to be liberal-minded and be sympathetic to some of the positions of the right.
Anyone who would dismiss the positions of the right completely out-of-hand isn't broad-minded.
The pay is about 20% lower than the corporate world, but the benifits made up for half of that. Job security was great....there is no chance for layoffs.:)
Job security IS great. I've worked at a university for a number of years and the fact is, if someone should be fired, they won't be. I have never seen it happen.
The worst that can happen to you for anything is that you'll be suspended with pay.
You don't even have to do your work. It is so difficult to fire anyone that they'll just hire someone else to do the work you were supposed to do. The hours are great too: its strictly 9:30 am to 3:30 pm. You also get plenty of time-off. Where I'm at its 8 hours leave every two weeks = over 5 weeks off per year. You might have to tell them you have a tummy ache to get 2.5 of those weeks off.
You can even say things like: "Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel! Revolution! Revolution until victory! Rolling to Jerusalem!" without much consequence. Or maybe you'll help found the governing council of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and then served on it.
Ooops, until you end up on O'Reilly factor shortly after the slaughter of 3000 people. Thats when the suspended-with-pay thing kicks in.
You'll also get plenty of support from the faculty. http://w3.usf.edu/~uff/AlArian/
Of course, this is only if you share your co-workers' political views. If you don't -- well, you wouldn't have been hired in the first place so it doesn't matter.
People have brought-up the issue of personal politics, but your general political views are also important. I work at a university with my wife who is a member of the faculty.
People don't get hired if they don't have the right political views. I'm not kidding.
Now, if you are politically very left, thats okay. You shouldn't have a problem. But if you are not, don't let your true feelings come out. Don't lie, but don't give them anything that they'll use against you.
A popular technique I've seen is the casual lunch. "Oh, lets have lunch while you're here for the interview." Say something verboten like "I think vouchers are a good idea" (real-example) and you are out of there.
Like I said, if you can agree with their political positions, or can shut-up about your own, then okay.
How is this patent that much different than a bot running over IRC?
I really don't see much of a difference except for the inclusion of some web functionality.
Re:Maybe some straw will help break the camel's ba
on
Shrinkwrapped Books
·
· Score: 2
At the point where the copyright holder sells or gives you the book, that person may require a contract. Once the book has been obtained, however, you shouldn't have to give up any rights in order to use it. That's the way I see it, at least.
I agree with you. Shrink-wrap licenses are a poor way to try to create these contracts. The point- of-sale is the appropriate place.
Re:Maybe some straw will help break the camel's ba
on
Shrinkwrapped Books
·
· Score: 2
Shrinkwrapped licenses for books are clearly a violation of the doctrine of first sale (you do not own the rights to distribute the content of a book, but you completely own your copy of the the physical book, and may distribute that any way you please).
If someone voluntarily gives up certain rights to obtain the book, how can this be a violation of the doctrine of first sale? I think thats the whole point of having the contract. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to license the book.
Isn't this a little similar to things like deed-restrictions on the purchase of a house? If you don't agree to the terms, don't buy the house.
It's not an article about a publisher being stupid and wasting paper; it's about the glacial creeping of an intellectual property mindset that is slowly eroding our rights.
I think you might have it backwards. Its BECAUSE the idea of intellectual property is eroding that these argeements and tactics are going to become more common.
The publisher of the book is trying protect its interest by asking for an agreement to certain terms. At that point it becomes an issue of contract law and not intellectual property.
How else can a publisher respond? If a publisher can't depend on people honouring intellectual property rights like copyright, the only thing left are voluntary contracts that explicitly spell-out limits on the use of the material.
However, before the customer buys the clothing, they have to sign a licensing agreement, saying that they will not wear the clothing every day of the week. [snip] And everybody says that corporations aren't taking away our freedoms.
Isn't your example a poor one? Your hypothetical customers are being asked to agree to certain terms and are not being forced. Your customers are giving up some freedoms volutarily to get the clothes. Giving up certain freedoms volutarily is different from having them taken isn't it?
One important freedom is the freedom of two parties to make certain agreements (contracts) between themselves.
Our whole view of the stock-market has been upside-down. A general increase in stock prices is bad. It means the cost of retirement has gotten more expensive.
When the price of gas or electricity or food goes up, people don't say "gee, look how great our economy is doing".
But they do just that when it come to stocks.
Of course, if you already own the stock or have stock options, you love it when people drive the price up irrationally.
For some reason, it appears that those of you not in the seed cities have a hard time realizing that projects need to begin somewhere.
We know projects have to begin somewhere. The problem is that if you don't live in a seed city, or in one of the five major metro areas, you won't see a benefit -- you'll being paying for it, of course.
Why can't you just admit that you like the idea of making everyone pay for your trips to Orlando?
bigger problem is much of Florida's other defining characteristic: fifty years of unregulated sprawl.
Then you say:
Office space, commerce and residential areas are kept separate, spread out and decentralized,
The decisions about where residential areas will be and where commerial areas will be are more often determined by zoning boards -- regulation.
Various governments decide how the land will be used. There is plenty of regulation.
Sprawl comes because governments subsidize road-building among other things. People who live far away from cities are not made to bare the true costs of their dicisions.
For every penny the government spends on a project like this, someone is getting work, a job, etc.
This is such a common myth. Where does the money come from to pay for this? From taxpayers. What would most taxpayers do with this money if they were allowed to keep it? Spend it -- "someone wouldbe getting work, a job, etc."
The effect of taxes is to merely change the kind of work that will be done. And this work is for the benefit of the five largest cities and not for the rest of the state.
Taxes don't create jobs, they merely change the kind of jobs that will be done.
"The voters responded by passing a referendum to require the building of a "bullet train," starting by November 2003. The new Florida High Speed Rail Authority is focusing first on the busy Miami-Orlando and Tampa-Orlando corridors, but eventually hopes to serve the whole state."
The voters didn't respond. The people of the five largest cities voted to make everyone pay for their bullet train.
And the referendum was not about serving the whole state -- it was about serving the five largest metro areas.
I live in a town less than 5 minutes from I4 where this train is going to be. It won't stop in my town (over 40,000 people), but I'll be paying for it anyway.
This is about one group of people voting themselves everyone's money. Hurray. Democracy at work.
The proponents of traditional energy often ignore this important fact, too. Did you think it was free to get oil out of the rock, shipped, refined, and shipped across the world to you to burn in your 16% efficient car?
No, I did not think it was free. Any other questions?
You cannot be pro freedom and oppose the employment of those from other countries. Its all about freedom of association. If I want to buy the programming services of someone from another country, why should I be stopped? I'm really being held hostage. At some point it begins to sound like organized crime where you are forced to use the "services" of one group "or else." As a free person, I should be able to deal economically with whomever I choose.
I think whats really happening here is that people have been so used to thinking that their talents are so special are now finding out that people all over the world are just as capable as they are.
Really, the difference in pay comes down to nothing more than being lucky enough to be born in the United States and speak English.
Even by conservative projections of technology development, it will soon be possible for starships to reach a significant fraction of the speed of light (say, 10%) by using lightsails pushed by lasers in solar orbit. (The ships would decelerate at their destination by releasing a second sail that would reflect the light from the home laser back to the ship.)
The problem with this is
KE = 1/2 mv^2
Hitting a 1 mg particle at 10% the speed of light would do serious damage. Thats about 10 times as much energy in a 1g bullet at 300 m/s.
So while warp-drive might not be needed, shields sure would.
Many here are pointing out that economic pressures will help limit consumption. The problem is that people often reject the market process as being unfair, immoral, etc and do all they can to substitute something else ala socialism.
You can bet that once prices start to rise to check consumption, the government will step in "in the name of the people" and fix prices.
Hell, it happened in the 1970's with Nixon's price controls on gas and gave us long lines at the pump and gas shortages.
The truth is that, when the market gives people economic information they don't like, they try to use the political process to make it go away instead of making changes in their habits.
When prices go up, instead of conserving, they'll bitch about those "evil greedy corporations." Hey, just like on Slashdot. The fact is, people don't change unless it hits them in the wallet, and they'll do everything they can to stop that from happening.
If the market suggests they be paid less for their out-dated skills because of less demand, they'll blame someone else. It happens over and over. People want it all for nothing.
I think what will happen ultimately is that the democratic process will force us all to drown together.
Without Amtrak you'd have 5 million more dumb fucks per day sailing off into morning gridlock in their 10mpg Escalades to their shite marketing jobs in the city.
If you took 5 seconds to check Amtrak's site, you'd find there are about 60,000 guests per day, in the whole country. Thats a drop in the bucket compared to automobile traffic.
The VERY powerful and VERY influencial gasoline and automobile lobby has ensured that public transportation will never be a viable alternative in the US
Public transportation isn't viable because its a pain in the ass. I drive an automobile because I can afford it.
I didn't realise we had members of the Bush administration posting to/.; that line's getting a bit tired since you used it WRT Enron.
Bullshit. Its a fucking miracle anything pro-capitalism gets posted. Whats tired is the constant anti-capitalist rants seen here over-and-over. Well guess fucking what: capitalism has won. Anyone who believes anything else is living in a dream world.
This anti-capitalist mentality is nothing but recycled late-19th century leftism and old as fucking dirt. Now thats tired.
If you want to read a really enlightening book, check out Stupid White Men [amazon.com] - I kid you not, this book will open your eyes.
This book is by Michael Moore, the same man who's first reaction to the slaughter of 3000 people on 9/11 was to wonder why the terrorists didn't kill more Republicans. Yeah, he's a great guy.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're intelligent enough, broad-minded enough, and ethical enough to be in science and be good at it, how could you possibly have political views anywhere right of center?
And you're so broad-minded that you think it's impossible.
Liberal-mindedness isn't the same a politically left. It is possible to be liberal-minded and be sympathetic to some of the positions of the right.
Anyone who would dismiss the positions of the right completely out-of-hand isn't broad-minded.
The pay is about 20% lower than the corporate world, but the benifits made up for half of that. Job security was great....there is no chance for layoffs. :)
t m
Job security IS great. I've worked at a university for a number of years and the fact is, if someone should be fired, they won't be. I have never seen it happen.
The worst that can happen to you for anything is that you'll be suspended with pay.
You don't even have to do your work. It is so difficult to fire anyone that they'll just hire someone else to do the work you were supposed to do.
The hours are great too: its strictly 9:30 am to 3:30 pm. You also get plenty of time-off. Where I'm at its 8 hours leave every two weeks = over 5 weeks off per year. You might have to tell them you have a tummy ache to get 2.5 of those weeks off.
You can even say things like: "Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel! Revolution! Revolution until victory! Rolling to Jerusalem!"
without much consequence. Or maybe you'll
help found the governing council of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and then served on it.
Ooops, until you end up on O'Reilly factor shortly after the slaughter of 3000 people. Thats when the suspended-with-pay thing kicks in.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020701-7405733.h
You'll also get plenty of support from the faculty.
http://w3.usf.edu/~uff/AlArian/
Of course, this is only if you share your co-workers' political views. If you don't -- well, you wouldn't have been hired in the first place so it doesn't matter.
People have brought-up the issue of personal politics, but your general political views are also important. I work at a university with my wife who is a member of the faculty.
People don't get hired if they don't have the right political views. I'm not kidding.
Now, if you are politically very left, thats okay. You shouldn't have a problem. But if you are not, don't let your true feelings come out. Don't lie, but don't give them anything that they'll use against you.
A popular technique I've seen is the casual lunch. "Oh, lets have lunch while you're here for the interview." Say something verboten like "I think vouchers are a good idea" (real-example) and you are out of there.
Like I said, if you can agree with their political positions, or can shut-up about your own, then okay.
Just warning you.
How is this patent that much different than a bot running over IRC?
I really don't see much of a difference except for the inclusion of some web functionality.
At the point where the copyright holder sells or gives you the book, that person may require a contract. Once the book has been obtained, however, you shouldn't have to give up any rights in order to use it. That's the way I see it, at least.
I agree with you. Shrink-wrap licenses are a poor way to try to create these contracts. The point- of-sale is the appropriate place.
Shrinkwrapped licenses for books are clearly a violation of the doctrine of first sale (you do not own the rights to distribute the content of a book, but you completely own your copy of the the physical book, and may distribute that any way you please).
If someone voluntarily gives up certain rights to obtain the book, how can this be a violation of the doctrine of first sale? I think thats the whole point of having the contract. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to license the book.
Isn't this a little similar to things like deed-restrictions on the purchase of a house? If you don't agree to the terms, don't buy the house.
It's not an article about a publisher being stupid and wasting paper; it's about the glacial creeping of an intellectual property mindset that is slowly eroding our rights.
I think you might have it backwards. Its BECAUSE the idea of intellectual property is eroding that these argeements and tactics are going to become more common.
The publisher of the book is trying protect its interest by asking for an agreement to certain terms. At that point it becomes an issue of contract law and not intellectual property.
How else can a publisher respond? If a publisher can't depend on people honouring intellectual property rights like copyright, the only thing left are voluntary contracts that explicitly spell-out limits on the use of the material.
However, before the customer buys the clothing, they have to sign a licensing agreement, saying that they will not wear the clothing every day of the week.
[snip]
And everybody says that corporations aren't taking away our freedoms.
Isn't your example a poor one? Your hypothetical customers are being asked to agree to certain terms and are not being forced. Your customers are giving up some freedoms volutarily to get the clothes. Giving up certain freedoms volutarily is different from having them taken isn't it?
One important freedom is the freedom of two parties to make certain agreements (contracts) between themselves.
Our whole view of the stock-market has been upside-down. A general increase in stock prices is bad. It means the cost of retirement has gotten more expensive.
When the price of gas or electricity or food goes up, people don't say "gee, look how great our economy is doing".
But they do just that when it come to stocks.
Of course, if you already own the stock or have stock options, you love it when people drive the price up irrationally.
For some reason, it appears that those of you not in the seed cities have a hard time realizing that projects need to begin somewhere.
We know projects have to begin somewhere. The problem is that if you don't live in a seed city, or in one of the five major metro areas, you won't see a benefit -- you'll being paying for it, of course.
Why can't you just admit that you like the idea of making everyone pay for your trips to Orlando?
Nonsense. I remember signing the petition to have the issue put on the ballot. I remember voting on it. I remember it being passed.
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
All: Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
First you say:
bigger problem is much of Florida's other defining characteristic: fifty years of unregulated sprawl.
Then you say:
Office space, commerce and residential areas are kept separate, spread out and decentralized,
The decisions about where residential areas will be and where commerial areas will be are more often determined by zoning boards -- regulation.
Various governments decide how the land will be used. There is plenty of regulation.
Sprawl comes because governments subsidize road-building among other things. People who live far away from cities are not made to bare the true costs of their dicisions.
For every penny the government spends on a project like this, someone is getting work, a job, etc.
This is such a common myth. Where does the money come from to pay for this? From taxpayers. What would most taxpayers do with this money if they were allowed to keep it? Spend it -- "someone wouldbe getting work, a job, etc."
The effect of taxes is to merely change the kind of work that will be done. And this work is for the benefit of the five largest cities and not for the rest of the state.
Taxes don't create jobs, they merely change the kind of jobs that will be done.
"The voters responded by passing a referendum to require the building of a "bullet train," starting by November 2003. The new Florida High Speed Rail Authority is focusing first on the busy Miami-Orlando and Tampa-Orlando corridors, but eventually hopes to serve the whole state."
The voters didn't respond. The people of the five largest cities voted to make everyone pay for their bullet train.
And the referendum was not about serving the whole state -- it was about serving the five largest metro areas.
I live in a town less than 5 minutes from I4 where this train is going to be. It won't stop in my town (over 40,000 people), but I'll be paying for it anyway.
This is about one group of people voting themselves everyone's money. Hurray. Democracy at work.
The proponents of traditional energy often ignore this important fact, too. Did you think it was free to get oil out of the rock, shipped, refined, and shipped across the world to you to burn in your 16% efficient car?
No, I did not think it was free. Any other questions?
This is a great point. The proponents of alternative energy often ignore this important fact. It takes energy to get energy.
This can't be ignored in determining whether some alternative is a net energy saver.
You cannot be pro freedom and oppose the employment of those from other countries. Its all about freedom of association. If I want to buy the programming services of someone from another country, why should I be stopped? I'm really being held hostage. At some point it begins to sound like organized crime where you are forced to use the "services" of one group "or else." As a free person, I should be able to deal economically with whomever I choose.
I think whats really happening here is that people have been so used to thinking that their talents are so special are now finding out that people all over the world are just as capable as they are.
Really, the difference in pay comes down to nothing more than being lucky enough to be born in the United States and speak English.
Money talks. If you like what they are doing, tell them you like it by buying one of their cards.
Even by conservative projections of technology development, it will soon be possible for starships to reach a significant fraction of the speed of light (say, 10%) by using lightsails pushed by lasers in solar orbit. (The ships would decelerate at their destination by releasing a second sail that would reflect the light from the home laser back to the ship.)
The problem with this is
KE = 1/2 mv^2
Hitting a 1 mg particle at 10% the speed of light would do serious damage. Thats about 10 times as much energy in a 1g bullet at 300 m/s.
So while warp-drive might not be needed, shields sure would.
Its one thing when people are free to individually buy or not buy a Microsoft OS.
Its another when their governments FORCE them to pay for Microsoft products.
I wonder how much of the $40 billion Microsoft has stashed away are tax dollars?
I'd just like to point out that long lines at the gas pumps are a form of market correction.
Or 'economic pressure'
Such things are not usually considered a "market correction."
What long gas lines show are a mis-match between supply and demand -- exactly what happens when prices are fixed.
Many here are pointing out that economic pressures will help limit consumption. The problem is that people often reject the market process as being unfair, immoral, etc and do all they can to substitute something else ala socialism.
You can bet that once prices start to rise to check consumption, the government will step in "in the name of the people" and fix prices.
Hell, it happened in the 1970's with Nixon's price controls on gas and gave us long lines at the pump and gas shortages.
The truth is that, when the market gives people economic information they don't like, they try to use the political process to make it go away instead of making changes in their habits.
When prices go up, instead of conserving, they'll bitch about those "evil greedy corporations." Hey, just like on Slashdot. The fact is, people don't change unless it hits them in the wallet, and they'll do everything they can to stop that from happening.
If the market suggests they be paid less for their out-dated skills because of less demand, they'll blame someone else. It happens over and over. People want it all for nothing.
I think what will happen ultimately is that the democratic process will force us all to drown together.
Without Amtrak you'd have 5 million more dumb fucks per day sailing off into morning gridlock in their 10mpg Escalades to their shite marketing jobs in the city.
If you took 5 seconds to check Amtrak's site, you'd find there are about 60,000 guests per day, in the whole country. Thats a drop in the bucket compared to automobile traffic.
The VERY powerful and VERY influencial gasoline and automobile lobby has ensured that public transportation will never be a viable alternative in the US
Public transportation isn't viable because its a pain in the ass. I drive an automobile because I can afford it.
I didn't realise we had members of the Bush administration posting to /.; that line's getting a bit tired since you used it WRT Enron.
Bullshit. Its a fucking miracle anything pro-capitalism gets posted. Whats tired is the constant anti-capitalist rants seen here over-and-over. Well guess fucking what: capitalism has won. Anyone who believes anything else is living in a dream world.
This anti-capitalist mentality is nothing but recycled late-19th century leftism and old as fucking dirt. Now thats tired.
If you want to read a really enlightening book, check out Stupid White Men [amazon.com] - I kid you not, this book will open your eyes.
This book is by Michael Moore, the same man who's first reaction to the slaughter of 3000 people on 9/11 was to wonder why the terrorists didn't kill more Republicans. Yeah, he's a great guy.