But we keep moving up the average quality of life. If we peg that enough decades back, 80% of us could stop working today and pay the 20% a big premium to keep it all rolling. And we could enjoy the quality of housing, autos, and health care of yesteryear with minimal advances, relatively speaking.
Friedrich Hayek, observing the digging of the Panama Canal, looked down on the work being done.
He asked, “Why are they doing this with shovels? Why not heavy equipment?” The answer was simple: “It’s about jobs.” His reply: “Then why not use spoons instead?”
I'm not sure how great a solution this is. It's incomplete, that's for sure.
Anorexia is typically tied to a need to have control, and the weight issue is where that is manifested. The second part is what we tend to focus on, but the need for control is the root cause. An unhealthy childhood environment is very common among anorexics, which is where the need for control is born.
To me the real research question is, if it were to not focus on unhealthy physical appearance, how would those who would turn to anorexia fulfill their need for control? Some other appearance-based criteria, or through a different venue entirely? If it didn't require enough work to be 'ideal,' the self-deprivation required to 'discipline' oneself would be gone and it may not produce any control-related benefits. I suspect overly rigorous athletic training would be one likely venue, but heavily working in any other person-specific field might be another.
I would like to see results of a study that is able to address that question.
My wife is a doctor and is extremely sharp; she graduated top of her class (top 15%) in med school.
She can reason and learn concepts very quickly, but I don't know anyone better than her at memorizing, recalling, and implementing volumes of factual data. Her memory is quasi-photographic, and she 'reads' data later on. She literally can recall what we ate for dinner on any random night four months ago--I picked about 4 evenings just to see. She seems to use reasoning skills primarily to sort through massive amounts of data and conceptual knowledge. Kind of like a walking encyclopedia that thoroughly understands and interrelates the concepts.
But she doesn't care to be creative. Honestly, almost not at all. Being a diagnostic doctor (radiology) is a perfect career for such a mind.
The smart and highly creative sorts can thrive in different career fields or choose the MD-PhD route.
Well, *&^t happens I guess. We'll just have to deal with the fact that the views are different and neither can be proven or disproven. Perhaps in a few millenia the human race will be a little brigher than we are now. Until then, I'm just going to try to play nice and hope everybody else is up to the same task.
Not at all. When Jesus came around he said he would 'fulfill' the laws of Moses, which the Jews of his day were presently living.
The law of Moses went out to a people who were pretty wild, so it fit the time. Keep in mind, the retribution-based justice of Ten Commandments are thought to date to about the same time frame as the Code of Hammurabi, so when they were 'new,' they actually were a big step forward for civilization - a written law based on justice. And in more modern times, this system was pretty crude and similar in ways to Sharia law. The law as set out in the Old Testament also includes things like spelling out religious/cultural ceremonies, practices such as not drinking blood and cooking meat, capital punishment by society (they didn't have jails worked out in 5000BC), rules on freedom for slaves and debt every so many decades, and so on.
Like the saying, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, Jesus came around and said we need to stop this and start incorporating mercy and other good principles into our theocracy or it isn't really God's system. And a lot of that stuff in the books just isn't really the important idea - you're missing the point of it all - so let's just start by having everybody try to play nice and see how far we get.
Believing in Christianity means you believe Jesus was right and those ancient laws need mercy as well as justice to be right. And a lot of other things, like it doesn't much matter what you eat, but rather what you do. Without believing in Christianity, most first world citizens probably feel the same. That changes what the Old Testament is used for. Since Christians believe many of those old rules no longer apply since they believe what Christ said was correct, those parts of the book becomes a historical record for Christians.
I'm not going to stone any adulterer because the Jewish culture was commanded to back in 3000 BC. Jesus kind of made a stand on that particular one. I'm not ignoring the Old Testament; it just doesn't apply anymore.
from: [ace37] to: webmaster@google.com date: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 13:38 subject: Digital media and IP Law -- Dear Google,
Please buy the RIAA and reinvent digital media in a more sane, fair, and rational fashion.
Thanks,
John
unmanned stealth drone bomber is already here
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Look up the Northrop X-47B. It's a stealth UAV that carries 4500 lbs and takes off from an aircraft carrier. It can do in-flight refueling. We're already there, and in the public domain no less.
One of the primary issues was that if the battery runs out of juice, a soldier can't swap it out for a fresh battery. They brought it up, and Apple basically said "we don't care." So they looked harder at Android.
Not everything useful is classified--especially when you get large amounts of easily categorized data.
For one, you could monitor a soldier's location using a tracker. Infect some statistically significant number of phones, and you have extremely useful logistical data.
This won't fix it, but at least they can make it less trivial to compromise.
Since you said you buy used CDs partly to keep your environmental footprint minimized, I'm making the assumption you do so on your larger scale purchases, i.e. buy used cars for the same reason and so forth.
Although I don't carry the same level of environmental concern as you appear to, I have to say power to you on defending your statement through lifestyle choices and action. I wish all who proclaimed those sentiments also acted accordingly.
I got my AA at a community college on a full ride scholarship, then I went to a state level school instead of ivy league so I could pay in state tuition. On purpose. Most of my teachers at the Jr College had MS level degrees and cared about teaching, so the quality of education wasn't really an issue. I then transferred the AA to a state level (but private) university to get my BS, so I have the same exact state level degree on my resume as anybody else. When I graduated with my BS, I had $10k in student loan debt, no assets of significance, and I never worked more than 30 hours a week at an easy retail job. I got right about the industry average wage for an entry level position, and it was at a position and company I wanted to work for. I guess these kids would say I squandered my talent since I could have gotten in at MIT or Standford, but I got the same job, same degree, and same pay, so I couldn't care less. Now my employer is paying for my MS (part time), so that one will be free.
Why people are getting press making such a big deal about this blows my mind. Honestly, the minimum monthly repayments from student loans just aren't that bad even if you do take way too much money, provided you get an economically useful degree.
Perhaps that's the problem--students are taking too much money at high dollar schools and then doing useless degrees. And the key argument seems to be--and it may be true, I'm not trying to be rude here--that the college students are too dumb to figure out they're paying tons of money on credit to earn a degree that's worthless in the economy. Well, yeah, if that's the issue, I'll admit it's a problem. But ignorance or recklessness are the drivers there.
So how about teaching high school students the right way to do things to stamp out the ignorance? Why sit around Wall Street whining--what does that do?
As a DoD contractor, I see that all the time. DoD employees are rightfully pissed when contractors develop tech on the government dime, then take the tech a half step further and start calling it proprietary. It's total BS. The DoD always wants the simple right to use the things they paid for without paying again. And in years past, DoD contracts departments have sometimes done a poor job and then been burned by buying something on a low initial bid, being sold a proprietary technology, and then being stuck with ridiculously overpriced maintenance costs and no way to cost-effectively hire someone else to do the work.
I've never seen the DoD just try to directly use a foreign patent for free, although it's not an issue of whether or not they want to--I think it's more functional roles. The DoD is primarily composed of enlisted guys who do the work and generalist officers who lead them. They employ pockets of specialists to keep the generalists out of trouble, and those few specialists usually end up responsible for technical management of programs and contracts so the officers don't need to do day to day management and can focus on strategic items. That way DoD officers don't have to learn how to manage highly technical staffs--which is a very different task from managing soldiers in the field, so this significatanly cuts DoD overhead--and the DoD doesn't have to figure out how to keep paying for a costly technical staff if congress reduces funding since they can just not extend contracts.
The DoD will still be crying for the new features and capabilities provided by new patents, but they generally don't care how it gets done, and consequently, the patent is an issue the contractor can figure out. The DoD just wants 'sharks with frikin lasers attached to their heads.' And now they buy the documentation too so they can later get competitive bids on upgrading those lasers down the road.
Your watchdog idea is interesting--I'd never really thought of implementing an government auditing organization in a form analogous to a legalized wikileaks.
The idea not only has real merit, but since wikileaks is an easy word to use to communicate that concept concisely, your core idea can also be quickly communicated with accuracy and therefore is much more well positioned than most good ideas to spread quickly, gain a following, and finally become a reform agenda item for someone empowered to implement it.
Please keep developing and proliferating this idea--unlike most political banter, I think this concept has a shot at becoming a reality if enough people hear about it.
The challenge is, since these protesters have no focus or measurable objectives, how does this movement do anything at all to fix the underlying problems? They need goals, and then they need a tractable plan. (The 1% has that much.)
Right now, the group is doing a great job of making themselves heard. Unfortunately, the entirety of their message so far is "This sucks."
I think the goals you are after here are good, but I'm not confident the proposed solutions would produce any improvement over the status quo. As your subject says I suppose.
If we redefine currency based on GDP, we'll see GDP manipulation replacing currency manipulation. No net change, just a few changes to the rules of the game.
If we abolish speculation by regulating the stock market, we would see a cash exodus from US markets to markets where speculation can still produce profit, and the businesses in those countries would benefit greatly from those large cash investments. Japan, the EU, and others will thank you. The US economy and the 401k accounts of working class Americans will not. You can't really get rid of gambling. Abolishing speculation would just move the dirt elsewhere, along with all the money and benefits that accompany it.
Reform of campaign finance and congressional terms are tractable problems. Maybe the Occupy movement should start there.
Interesting to see how many NASA and DoD contracts they've identified that are essentially trying to crowdsource innovative, cost-effective solutions that improve the aerospace performance envelope.
Big budgets and high-caliber engineering skill and equipment are great for developing a concept, but unfortunately, innovation isn't a skill we teach well in school yet, and the need for innovative approaches are at the core of these problems. I really hope these programs have success!
First, his killing was authorized by the President months ago. Awlaki's father and a few civil rights groups objected, but why is the general public only reacting to this now that he's been killed?
Second, Congress authorized Operation Enduring Freedom against al-Quaeda on 9/14/01 as S.J. Res 23. Whether or not you support or agree with that action or the current status, it can be argued that this killing would fall under the OEF authorization. Awlaki is currently a high level Al-Quada operative (read: terrorist) and has links to 9/11. The text of SJ Res 23 is available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107
SJ Res 23, Sec 2a In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
So if Pres. Obama "determines" Awlaki "aided" the attacks on 9/11/01, he is authorized to use "all necessary and appropriate force." Now, maybe that works, maybe it doesn't, but he's at least got an argument to defend himself with--this wasn't a simple, out of the blue call to assassinate someone.
As a working ME--I have my BS, 4-5 years as an engineer in aerospace, and am a part time MS student about halfway through--I would recommend you instead spend your time on an MS in Mechanical Engineering (or even just a BS), work a few years, then go back to school to advance your education and qualifications in whatever you found you enjoy the most. Otherwise you're just guessing at what career you want based on the university class offerings or what people on the internet suggest.
One of my colleagues had 3 BS degrees and about 20 years of experience. In general, his other BS degrees were less beneficial to him than a single Master's degree would have been. His degrees are now dated, so they didn't offer current skill sets to him anymore, and he seemed to rely more on his experience than his education(s). Also, since he was an arrogant turd, he lost credibility and was considered someone who had breadth but lacked technical depth because he made a few minor technical mistakes. Had he been nicer it may have been overlooked--sometimes personality and characteristics go a lot farther than your qualifications, for better or for worse.
You'll need an MS in mechanical engineering if you want to do serious technical work and make important technical calls. You'll also need experience. An MS gives you a $10k/year pay jump, but, more importantly, it communicates a higher level of technical proficiency, which makes management more willing to trust you with the harder (in other words more challenging and interesting) technical problems. A second BS gives you no pay bonus, and while you'll probably be quite useful technically and more diverse in your skill sets for the first 10 years, your utility and unique capabilities are hard to qualify and utilize since there aren't a lot of occupations set up to leverage multiple BS-level proficiencies. (Automotive won't marry CS/IT and ME experience as well, but Intel might). In automotive, you'd probably get interesting work, but most often by accident--because somebody else can't do it as well and you have a better answer ready--rather than by assignment and qualifications. That will get you promotions and such, but without an MS in one field or the other you'll probably hit a ceiling and constantly feel underutilized. Because you will be.
However, what you're talking about in the original post is almost making programmatic calls and deciding corporate strategy. That's quite different. One good route to making those decisions with an enjoyable, stable career is to get an MSME plus a few years experience on the technical side, then go to night school for an MBA. After you have the MBA, move to positions where you manage engineering teams and work corporate bids and strategy. You'll make the calls. And you'll see really quickly why things don't always go the way they ought to. You'll make more money, but if you aren't careful you'll also work and/or travel too many hours to really enjoy it.
Or if you find you really want to develop the next technology say on fuel cells, you can go for a PhD. You'll teach, do research, and consult. And you'll have a lot of direct influence on the ideas that get developed through your roles as a teacher and a consultant. But you'll work narrow subjects at the research level, the guys with MS degrees working at big firms will implement those ideas, and the guys with business plus technical degrees will decide which ideas get funded and implemented. If you find you like research and teaching though, it's a good option--pretty good pay with lots of time off, so your lifestyle is great.
I'm sure it didn't help Microsoft any, but I didn't mind when bing sent me a check last year for buying a nice camera on tigerdirect. I'll gladly encourage them to continue using a business model that involves giving me free money!
And honestly, it seems to be working wonders for Firefox with google paying big bucks to be the default search engine--and unlike MS, I'm sure google is actually getting a positive return on that investment.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what it does.
But we keep moving up the average quality of life. If we peg that enough decades back, 80% of us could stop working today and pay the 20% a big premium to keep it all rolling. And we could enjoy the quality of housing, autos, and health care of yesteryear with minimal advances, relatively speaking.
The problem is we can't reach nirvana.
Friedrich Hayek, observing the digging of the Panama Canal, looked down on the work being done.
He asked, “Why are they doing this with shovels? Why not heavy equipment?”
The answer was simple: “It’s about jobs.”
His reply: “Then why not use spoons instead?”
I'm not sure how great a solution this is. It's incomplete, that's for sure.
Anorexia is typically tied to a need to have control, and the weight issue is where that is manifested. The second part is what we tend to focus on, but the need for control is the root cause. An unhealthy childhood environment is very common among anorexics, which is where the need for control is born.
To me the real research question is, if it were to not focus on unhealthy physical appearance, how would those who would turn to anorexia fulfill their need for control? Some other appearance-based criteria, or through a different venue entirely? If it didn't require enough work to be 'ideal,' the self-deprivation required to 'discipline' oneself would be gone and it may not produce any control-related benefits. I suspect overly rigorous athletic training would be one likely venue, but heavily working in any other person-specific field might be another.
I would like to see results of a study that is able to address that question.
Already done. Deploys from an aircraft carrier, carries 5000 lbs of bombs. Looks like a B2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
My wife is a doctor and is extremely sharp; she graduated top of her class (top 15%) in med school.
She can reason and learn concepts very quickly, but I don't know anyone better than her at memorizing, recalling, and implementing volumes of factual data. Her memory is quasi-photographic, and she 'reads' data later on. She literally can recall what we ate for dinner on any random night four months ago--I picked about 4 evenings just to see. She seems to use reasoning skills primarily to sort through massive amounts of data and conceptual knowledge. Kind of like a walking encyclopedia that thoroughly understands and interrelates the concepts.
But she doesn't care to be creative. Honestly, almost not at all. Being a diagnostic doctor (radiology) is a perfect career for such a mind.
The smart and highly creative sorts can thrive in different career fields or choose the MD-PhD route.
You can't disprove the existence of a God.
I can't prove the existence of a God.
Well, *&^t happens I guess. We'll just have to deal with the fact that the views are different and neither can be proven or disproven. Perhaps in a few millenia the human race will be a little brigher than we are now. Until then, I'm just going to try to play nice and hope everybody else is up to the same task.
Not at all. When Jesus came around he said he would 'fulfill' the laws of Moses, which the Jews of his day were presently living.
The law of Moses went out to a people who were pretty wild, so it fit the time. Keep in mind, the retribution-based justice of Ten Commandments are thought to date to about the same time frame as the Code of Hammurabi, so when they were 'new,' they actually were a big step forward for civilization - a written law based on justice. And in more modern times, this system was pretty crude and similar in ways to Sharia law. The law as set out in the Old Testament also includes things like spelling out religious/cultural ceremonies, practices such as not drinking blood and cooking meat, capital punishment by society (they didn't have jails worked out in 5000BC), rules on freedom for slaves and debt every so many decades, and so on.
Like the saying, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, Jesus came around and said we need to stop this and start incorporating mercy and other good principles into our theocracy or it isn't really God's system. And a lot of that stuff in the books just isn't really the important idea - you're missing the point of it all - so let's just start by having everybody try to play nice and see how far we get.
Believing in Christianity means you believe Jesus was right and those ancient laws need mercy as well as justice to be right. And a lot of other things, like it doesn't much matter what you eat, but rather what you do. Without believing in Christianity, most first world citizens probably feel the same. That changes what the Old Testament is used for. Since Christians believe many of those old rules no longer apply since they believe what Christ said was correct, those parts of the book becomes a historical record for Christians.
I'm not going to stone any adulterer because the Jewish culture was commanded to back in 3000 BC. Jesus kind of made a stand on that particular one. I'm not ignoring the Old Testament; it just doesn't apply anymore.
Who said we did?
Hint: not us.
They do that already. We're getting better and better at it.
Chuck Testa.
from: [ace37]
to: webmaster@google.com
date: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 13:38
subject: Digital media and IP Law
--
Dear Google,
Please buy the RIAA and reinvent digital media in a more sane, fair,
and rational fashion.
Thanks,
John
Look up the Northrop X-47B. It's a stealth UAV that carries 4500 lbs and takes off from an aircraft carrier. It can do in-flight refueling. We're already there, and in the public domain no less.
Data: http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html
Picture: http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/lgm_0016.jpg
One of the primary issues was that if the battery runs out of juice, a soldier can't swap it out for a fresh battery. They brought it up, and Apple basically said "we don't care." So they looked harder at Android.
Not everything useful is classified--especially when you get large amounts of easily categorized data.
For one, you could monitor a soldier's location using a tracker. Infect some statistically significant number of phones, and you have extremely useful logistical data.
This won't fix it, but at least they can make it less trivial to compromise.
Since you said you buy used CDs partly to keep your environmental footprint minimized, I'm making the assumption you do so on your larger scale purchases, i.e. buy used cars for the same reason and so forth.
Although I don't carry the same level of environmental concern as you appear to, I have to say power to you on defending your statement through lifestyle choices and action. I wish all who proclaimed those sentiments also acted accordingly.
Here's another sob story, I squandered my talent.
I got my AA at a community college on a full ride scholarship, then I went to a state level school instead of ivy league so I could pay in state tuition. On purpose. Most of my teachers at the Jr College had MS level degrees and cared about teaching, so the quality of education wasn't really an issue. I then transferred the AA to a state level (but private) university to get my BS, so I have the same exact state level degree on my resume as anybody else. When I graduated with my BS, I had $10k in student loan debt, no assets of significance, and I never worked more than 30 hours a week at an easy retail job. I got right about the industry average wage for an entry level position, and it was at a position and company I wanted to work for. I guess these kids would say I squandered my talent since I could have gotten in at MIT or Standford, but I got the same job, same degree, and same pay, so I couldn't care less. Now my employer is paying for my MS (part time), so that one will be free.
Why people are getting press making such a big deal about this blows my mind. Honestly, the minimum monthly repayments from student loans just aren't that bad even if you do take way too much money, provided you get an economically useful degree.
Perhaps that's the problem--students are taking too much money at high dollar schools and then doing useless degrees. And the key argument seems to be--and it may be true, I'm not trying to be rude here--that the college students are too dumb to figure out they're paying tons of money on credit to earn a degree that's worthless in the economy. Well, yeah, if that's the issue, I'll admit it's a problem. But ignorance or recklessness are the drivers there.
So how about teaching high school students the right way to do things to stamp out the ignorance? Why sit around Wall Street whining--what does that do?
As a DoD contractor, I see that all the time. DoD employees are rightfully pissed when contractors develop tech on the government dime, then take the tech a half step further and start calling it proprietary. It's total BS. The DoD always wants the simple right to use the things they paid for without paying again. And in years past, DoD contracts departments have sometimes done a poor job and then been burned by buying something on a low initial bid, being sold a proprietary technology, and then being stuck with ridiculously overpriced maintenance costs and no way to cost-effectively hire someone else to do the work.
I've never seen the DoD just try to directly use a foreign patent for free, although it's not an issue of whether or not they want to--I think it's more functional roles. The DoD is primarily composed of enlisted guys who do the work and generalist officers who lead them. They employ pockets of specialists to keep the generalists out of trouble, and those few specialists usually end up responsible for technical management of programs and contracts so the officers don't need to do day to day management and can focus on strategic items. That way DoD officers don't have to learn how to manage highly technical staffs--which is a very different task from managing soldiers in the field, so this significatanly cuts DoD overhead--and the DoD doesn't have to figure out how to keep paying for a costly technical staff if congress reduces funding since they can just not extend contracts.
The DoD will still be crying for the new features and capabilities provided by new patents, but they generally don't care how it gets done, and consequently, the patent is an issue the contractor can figure out. The DoD just wants 'sharks with frikin lasers attached to their heads.'
And now they buy the documentation too so they can later get competitive bids on upgrading those lasers down the road.
Your watchdog idea is interesting--I'd never really thought of implementing an government auditing organization in a form analogous to a legalized wikileaks.
The idea not only has real merit, but since wikileaks is an easy word to use to communicate that concept concisely, your core idea can also be quickly communicated with accuracy and therefore is much more well positioned than most good ideas to spread quickly, gain a following, and finally become a reform agenda item for someone empowered to implement it.
Please keep developing and proliferating this idea--unlike most political banter, I think this concept has a shot at becoming a reality if enough people hear about it.
The challenge is, since these protesters have no focus or measurable objectives, how does this movement do anything at all to fix the underlying problems? They need goals, and then they need a tractable plan. (The 1% has that much.)
Right now, the group is doing a great job of making themselves heard. Unfortunately, the entirety of their message so far is "This sucks."
I think the goals you are after here are good, but I'm not confident the proposed solutions would produce any improvement over the status quo. As your subject says I suppose.
If we redefine currency based on GDP, we'll see GDP manipulation replacing currency manipulation. No net change, just a few changes to the rules of the game.
If we abolish speculation by regulating the stock market, we would see a cash exodus from US markets to markets where speculation can still produce profit, and the businesses in those countries would benefit greatly from those large cash investments. Japan, the EU, and others will thank you. The US economy and the 401k accounts of working class Americans will not. You can't really get rid of gambling. Abolishing speculation would just move the dirt elsewhere, along with all the money and benefits that accompany it.
Reform of campaign finance and congressional terms are tractable problems. Maybe the Occupy movement should start there.
Interesting to see how many NASA and DoD contracts they've identified that are essentially trying to crowdsource innovative, cost-effective solutions that improve the aerospace performance envelope.
Big budgets and high-caliber engineering skill and equipment are great for developing a concept, but unfortunately, innovation isn't a skill we teach well in school yet, and the need for innovative approaches are at the core of these problems. I really hope these programs have success!
First, his killing was authorized by the President months ago. Awlaki's father and a few civil rights groups objected, but why is the general public only reacting to this now that he's been killed?
Second, Congress authorized Operation Enduring Freedom against al-Quaeda on 9/14/01 as S.J. Res 23. Whether or not you support or agree with that action or the current status, it can be argued that this killing would fall under the OEF authorization. Awlaki is currently a high level Al-Quada operative (read: terrorist) and has links to 9/11. The text of SJ Res 23 is available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107
SJ Res 23, Sec 2a
In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
So if Pres. Obama "determines" Awlaki "aided" the attacks on 9/11/01, he is authorized to use "all necessary and appropriate force." Now, maybe that works, maybe it doesn't, but he's at least got an argument to defend himself with--this wasn't a simple, out of the blue call to assassinate someone.
Due to the extensive illegal use of their product, police have asked Remington to stop the Mexican drug trade.
As a working ME--I have my BS, 4-5 years as an engineer in aerospace, and am a part time MS student about halfway through--I would recommend you instead spend your time on an MS in Mechanical Engineering (or even just a BS), work a few years, then go back to school to advance your education and qualifications in whatever you found you enjoy the most. Otherwise you're just guessing at what career you want based on the university class offerings or what people on the internet suggest.
One of my colleagues had 3 BS degrees and about 20 years of experience. In general, his other BS degrees were less beneficial to him than a single Master's degree would have been. His degrees are now dated, so they didn't offer current skill sets to him anymore, and he seemed to rely more on his experience than his education(s). Also, since he was an arrogant turd, he lost credibility and was considered someone who had breadth but lacked technical depth because he made a few minor technical mistakes. Had he been nicer it may have been overlooked--sometimes personality and characteristics go a lot farther than your qualifications, for better or for worse.
You'll need an MS in mechanical engineering if you want to do serious technical work and make important technical calls. You'll also need experience. An MS gives you a $10k/year pay jump, but, more importantly, it communicates a higher level of technical proficiency, which makes management more willing to trust you with the harder (in other words more challenging and interesting) technical problems. A second BS gives you no pay bonus, and while you'll probably be quite useful technically and more diverse in your skill sets for the first 10 years, your utility and unique capabilities are hard to qualify and utilize since there aren't a lot of occupations set up to leverage multiple BS-level proficiencies. (Automotive won't marry CS/IT and ME experience as well, but Intel might). In automotive, you'd probably get interesting work, but most often by accident--because somebody else can't do it as well and you have a better answer ready--rather than by assignment and qualifications. That will get you promotions and such, but without an MS in one field or the other you'll probably hit a ceiling and constantly feel underutilized. Because you will be.
However, what you're talking about in the original post is almost making programmatic calls and deciding corporate strategy. That's quite different. One good route to making those decisions with an enjoyable, stable career is to get an MSME plus a few years experience on the technical side, then go to night school for an MBA. After you have the MBA, move to positions where you manage engineering teams and work corporate bids and strategy. You'll make the calls. And you'll see really quickly why things don't always go the way they ought to. You'll make more money, but if you aren't careful you'll also work and/or travel too many hours to really enjoy it.
Or if you find you really want to develop the next technology say on fuel cells, you can go for a PhD. You'll teach, do research, and consult. And you'll have a lot of direct influence on the ideas that get developed through your roles as a teacher and a consultant. But you'll work narrow subjects at the research level, the guys with MS degrees working at big firms will implement those ideas, and the guys with business plus technical degrees will decide which ideas get funded and implemented. If you find you like research and teaching though, it's a good option--pretty good pay with lots of time off, so your lifestyle is great.
I'm sure it didn't help Microsoft any, but I didn't mind when bing sent me a check last year for buying a nice camera on tigerdirect. I'll gladly encourage them to continue using a business model that involves giving me free money!
And honestly, it seems to be working wonders for Firefox with google paying big bucks to be the default search engine--and unlike MS, I'm sure google is actually getting a positive return on that investment.