Here's the major flaws in this argument: 1. The Internet is necessary. Sure there's people who "get along" without it, but there are people who pride themselves on getting along without most modern conveniences, but they have also accepted that they're no longer a part of Society (and they like it that way). The Internet is how things get done in our modern life. News, education, paying bills - all aspects of life have been tailored to the Internet. Studies have shown that children who have regular access to the Internet do better in school. The Internet has opened up a whole new method of allowing people who once found it difficult to stay in contact with loved ones to easily keep in touch. The Internet is a huge element of the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and other movements of Social Change. 2. The Cell phone is necessary, especially in emergency situations. Slip on ice and find yourself and your car in a gorge? Call for help. Taking a stroll in your neighborhood and see something suspicious? Call it in right there. Find your town has been decimated by a natural disaster and the phone lines are down? Use your cell to call for help or let loved ones know you're okay. 3. The car is no longer a luxury item. Once again, Society has adapted to the car and it's nearly impossible to get anything done (at least outside a major metropolitan area) without the use of a vehicle. And while I have many friends who live in the city and have a perfectly fine time without the use of an automobile, at least two or three times a month they rent a Zipcar (or the equivalent) to get things done like grocery shopping or visiting family outside the city. 4. I take issue with the idea that kids get jobs after school because they don't have "dependable parents". My parents were VERY dependable, but they wanted me to work to teach me things like interpersonal skills and responsibility. My children will get jobs when they're old enough for the very same reason. And there was a time when minimum-wage jobs were the sole domain of the under-18 crowd. Now they've been forced out by other groups who, for whatever reason, have been forced to take said jobs. 5. A guaranteed income supplement is a handout. And given the state of things in Washington right now, how guaranteed will it be if the government shuts down? 6. The problem with upping the minimum wage is that each state handles their own MW, so if one raises their MW but the surrounding states don't, then businesses start to move out of the state with the higher MW. How do I know? Because it's happening here in Illinois and every day we read or hear about a business who's moving to Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan or Missouri because the MW is lower in those states. You can cry and beat your fists and say, "Well, those companies don't care about the worker!", but the fact is that there's no companies coming IN to offset the ones going out, so then it must be ALL companies who don't care then, right? But, I agree with your first sentence: let's set a minimum basic level of acceptable living and then move from there. The problem is that, you truly will start to have class warfare because there will be some areas that have people high above that level, some well above that level, some just above that level, some right at that level and then some below that level. And then people will start pointing fingers and saying, "Look at those people in the area high above the level! They're the one's responsible for this!"
Why does everything that has traditionally been done a certain way (and successfully) have to automatically be subject to the whims of those who want to do it another way, "just to see what would happen"? The Doctor has traditionally been Male. And people have been just fine with that. What are the motivations to make The Doctor female? There are none, save for one: because we live in an age where certain types of people cannot just let something be what it is or let those who enjoy something just enjoy it as they like it. I, for one, am against making The Doctor a woman if just for the reason that it won't stop there. Already I heard on BBC radio someone suggesting that The Doctor could be a Transgendered Lesbian if they wanted. And that's the problem: I don't want The Doctor's sexuality to become part of the show. If you make The Doctor a woman, then Doctor Who will have reached it's "Moonlighting" moment. And then every group will want their own version of The Doctor and the show will be less about the adventures of the Last Galifreyan and all about, "Oooo, will we have an Asian Female this time around? What about an African Homosexual?" Leave The Doctor's gender alone and concentrate on writing great stories. Besides, "Madman with a box" sounds a lot better than "Crazy lady with a box".
Because it couldn't be the need to tailor the school day to fit Mom and Dad's work schedules - Or the mountains of un-necessary homework that the kids (even in grade school) get - Or the constant barrage from teachers and coaches that the kids need to have at least one if not two extra curricular activities - Or the insane concept that kids have to attend a minimum of seven classes every day -
Research has shown that the average child between the ages of 10 and 20 require more sleep than previously thought to accommodate for their physical and mental changes. But instead of tailoring the school day to account for that, we'll blame laptops, smartphones, tablets and console gaming.
Here's some ideas: 1. Just like in college, have some classes offered MWF and some offered TR. That way, there's more time in the day for a kid to work on homework, and find their teacher if they have a question. 2. Let's put more money towards buses, and allow kids to go to school from 9 am to 4 pm, instead of forcing them to get up at 5am to get ready for school. 3. How about some teachers (I'm looking at you, math teachers) stick with assigning homework that teaches the basics and offers the more advanced concepts as extra credit. If I'm new to Calculus, it's better that you make sure I understand the basics of Calculus before "challenging" me with advanced topics before I'm ready. 4. With less classes per day, extracurricular activities could be pursued during the school day, rather than forcing kids to do them after school and delaying when they can get to their homework.
The problem isn't the distractions, it's the organization of the school day itself.
I have to comment on this line from the article, "...Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars..." Rational compared to what? What exactly does a Segway do better than any current form of transportation out there? Can it replace the bicycle? No, since the Segway can run out of power where it cannot be recharged. Plus the bicycle has had over 100 years of innovation to make it work with the rider. I've ridden a Segway, it's not as fantastic a ride as a bicycle. Can it replace the automobile? Not if you need to go over 5 mph (for beginners). Or uphill. Or more than 25 miles. Or if it rains. Or if you have to go grocery shopping. In terms of city driving, the scooter is a much more sensible vehicle. The Segway "failed" because it's a niche device. It was a device created without a market, and it had to manufacture its own. It's perfect for zipping around a campus, but not much else. And let's face it, can you image a city full of people riding these things? Accidents galore, without the benefit of safety harnesses and crumple zones. And Google Glass isn't going to "fail" because you might look like a dork (need I mention current fashions that do the same thing yet a good portion of the population still loves them?), it's going to "fail" because of all the privacy issues associated with the product.
Because of laptops, tablets and smartphones (unless we're counting laptops as PCs, which I can understand). Most users don't need everything that a PC offers, especially the bloatware pre-installed from companies such as Sony, Lenovo, HP or Dell. Most users require very little from their computing device: e-mail, social media and web browsing. And smartphones and tablets provide all those, in a compact form-factor, along with texting/messaging. This isn't a huge mystery. The market is shifting to sleeker, more task-focused computing. The PC is going to be relegated to those who require it, and the tablet and smartphone are taking over the task of more general computing.
This is a tactic that's not just limited to interviews for tech positions, this is becoming a scourge amongst all service-based positions. My wife has twice been the victim of this, and she works in marketing/advertising. What happens is the interviewer says, "Here's a scenario, create a quick campaign slogan or copy to address the needs of the client," under the guise of "getting a feel for your skillset". So the candidate performs the work and then either doesn't get the job or gets a second "interview" in which they're asked to perform the same task, only this time with a bit more detail. Recruiters are well aware of this process and are asking their clients to notify them immediately when they're being asked to "provide examples". Your resume and experience (and in the case of the marketing people, their "book" of previous work), combined with more general job-specific questions should be enough to give a potential employer a good idea of your skills. The interview isn't actually about getting to know what you can do, it's more about gauging how you'll fit in with the corporate environment and the personalities on the team you'll be joining.
And make no mistake, having an interview candidate "solve" your issues for you isn't about the existing team being inept, it's purely a method of obtaining free labor.
This romantic notion of "...sometimes take chances on things we wouldn't otherwise try..." when it comes to dating is bullshit. When trying a new restaurant, sure it works just fine, but that's also because you know that, at most, you'll have one bad meal. But relationships are not restaurants, and regardless of what Ludlow has to say, compatibility is key.
The reason for the high divorce rate isn't Feminism or a casual attitude toward Marriage, it's the concept that "Opposites Attract" should be the norm. Opposites Attract doesn't work. It's fun for a month or two, but then the changes start. "I love him, but I wish he'd do..." or "I love her, but I wish she'd stop..." are the death knells of relationships. People need to learn that if someone you're dating isn't compatible with you, don't try to change them, simply end the relationship. If Tommy doesn't ring Sally's bell, then Sally doesn't have to feel she needs to stay with him while they're dating. The dumbest thing I've ever heard is, "Oh, I know that makes me crazy, but that will all change once we get married."
What's at the heart of the matter is that young people don't know who they are, nor take the time to learn. There's so much pressure to get married and pop out kids that people in their twenties don't take the time to learn about who they are and what makes them tick. So when it comes to picking a mate, they don't know what they're looking for. Once someone knows themselves, then they can seriously start looking for someone with whom they'd like to spend the rest of their lives, and THAT'S when sites like eHarmony and Match.com show their true strength.
In the words of RuPaul, "If you don't love yourself, how in the hell you gonna love somebody else?"
While I agree that this is more about the shooter than the tools used to carry out this heinous act, and that the idea of someone with mental issue being allowed to legally possess a firearm is ludicrous, no one seems to be focused on the two things that stand in the way of passing laws to prevent the mentally ill from legally owning a gun: self-awareness and privacy. 1. The crazy people don't "know" they're crazy. Adam was getting treatment for a disorder, but only because someone recognized his need for treatment and got it for him when he was a minor. But what about when he gets older? Has anyone ever had the pleasure of knowing someone with a mental illness? In my experience, about 30% (roughly) are self-aware enough to admit they have a problem and seek treatment. The other 70% don't admit they have a disorder and won't seek treatment for various reasons, but mostly because they don't want to be labeled as "crazy" or "mentally ill" (there's a whole other argument about how we as a Society are partially to blame for that, but it's beyond the scope of the discussion here). So if they don't seek treatment, who will be able to classify them properly?
2. Violating one's right to privacy. If a doctor cannot tell the whole world that someone has VD or HIV, what makes you think that a therapist will be able to release information about their patients' mental health? Even if someone seeks treatment, there's a litany of legal precedent to keep their treatment a secret, even from agencies who would be regulating the sale of arms. The only way a law which restricts the sale of firearms to the mentally ill would work is if there were a database of who's diagnosed as mentally ill, and I can pretty much guarantee that that's not going to happen. At the very least, it would open the door to keeping a database of other people who would be considered "threats" to Society, which is something I know no sane person would advocate.
Do we as a Society need to do a better job of treating the mentally ill, both in terms of facilities and general attitudes? Of course. But this idea of having a way of identifying the mentally ill for purposes of restricting their ability to legally own a firearm is simply not practical.
Plus, even if it did pass, there's still a huge black market for firearms of any type, and THOSE people don't care if you're mentally ill or not, so long as you have the cash.
I understand most of the arguments against the dollar bill (and penny, nickle, etc.), but I don't believe this has been completely thought through. First, 4 billion over 30 years? Right now, on the scale our World operates, 4 billion really isn't a whole lot to worry about (considering our deficit is in the Trillions). Take that further to $140+ million per year and it's tantamount to an individual who makes $150,000 annually saving $1.40 a year (assuming there's a direct comparison between the US's $15 trillion GDP and the $150,000 annual salary). Then there's the question about with what we'd replace the paper money. Many here have suggested using coins, but, for me, $20 in paper money is a lot more convenient than twenty large coins in my pocket. Plus, even though it was suggested as a joke at the beginning of this thread, there are professions in which smaller denoms are heavily used, and I can't imagine a stripper or bartender wanting to head home with an extra 20 pounds of metal in her purse. As far as the vending machines go, there's a perfect solution for that - start accepting debit cards or NFC and stop taking any sort of currency altogether. Of course, they may complain about the cost of having to service the machines because of the bills getting stuck, but, roughly translated, what they're actually saying is, "If we didn't have to accept dollar bills, we could let go of most of our service technicians." They may be annoying, but dollar bills clearly maintain someone's job security. So while I see all the arguments against the dollar bill, just like with may "great ideas", no one has mentioned the downsides to eliminating it. And as far as the penny goes, I don't know how factual it is, but there's an episode of "The West Wing" that talks about one reason we'll never ditch the penny - unless you move Lincoln's face to another coin, Illinois (and Kentucky for that matter) will always lobby against eliminating the penny.
I don't want this to come off as snarky or accusing, but do you have children? I wondered why parents did all the things that they did in relation to their children - then I had them. And unless you're a completely self-absorbed person, having children completely changes your World outlook. My mom did the same stuff as your mom did, until Adam Walsh was abducted. After that, all the wandering off and leaving me alone in the store ceased. And now that I have kids, I completely understand why. There's certain shows (detective dramas mostly) that, while the episodes dealing with crimes against children always upset me, I cannot even watch those episodes now, because it hits too close to home. Regardless, it's not news reports that motivate parents into action. News reports are about someone else's kids. What gets parents paranoid is simply the THOUGHT of something happening to their child. Some are more susceptible to this than others, but all good parents have been woken up in the middle of the night over the image of their child missing or being taken. The real question concerning V-Chipping your kids is this: are you doing it to recover your child, or to find the offender? Because I know, for me, my primary goal would be to get my child back safely, but getting my hands on the abductor would be a delicious bonus. I'm totally against this idea on principle, so it doesn't matter, but I can see where it would be appealing to many parents.
I was just watching "Fight Club" and I realized that if Anonymous and TGS want to protest these banks and politicians, then why don't they just do what Project Mayhem did without all the destruction of property: alleviate everyone's outstanding credit card and other unsecured debt? If they really want to convince me that they're doing this to fight for the "little guy" then help out the little guy. Until then, they're only doing this for their own satisfaction.
Not to mention in the same year when my wife went to vote she was handed her mother's voting materials. When she brought this up to the Election Judge they just said, "Oh don't worry about it, no one really checks anyway." Theoretically, my wife could have voted in her mother's name, left the building, had lunch, returned to the polling place and then voted under her own name.
I demand that they check my ID when I go to the Polling Place, why wouldn't I want them to make sure that I am who I say I am?
If you're only making $1.98 a day, you're not using a smartphone. And if you're only making $1.98 a day, you should spend more time getting an education (especially if it's studying for your Citizenship exam) and making yourself a more marketable employee than playing Angry Birds.
The reason G+ is getting such good reviews from their users is the fact that the only people on G+ right now are those who prefer it over FB. This isn't to imply one is "better" than the other, but rather that there are people who are Facebook users and people who are Google+ users. I don't understand why everything in technology has to be a competition. Windows vs. Mac, iOS vs Android, Linux vs. - everybody. I for one find all this bickering very, very tiring. If your friend likes a different OS or software than you do, that doesn't make them an "idiot", it just means they find that the other OS or software meets their needs than the one you prefer.
THANK YOU, YOUR $0.02 HAS BEEN DEPOSITED. HAVE A NICE DAY.
1. I don't think that the high-level "hackers" you reference are the larger part of the iceberg, I think it's actually quite the opposite: think of it more like an inverted iceberg. Just like anything, there are loads of low-level "hackers" who are careless or inexperienced, but the playing field narrows as skill level increases. 2. The risk you run with providing budding "hackers" with the tools they need to develop their skills to be used, "...within the boundaries of the law..." is akin to improving a sociopath's shooting skills. The fact is, if someone doesn't have a problem with breaking into, well, anything, using a computer ("hacking") there's a deeper issue there that needs to be addressed. 3. I know many people who are self-described "hackers" and let me tell you, they don't need any help from anyone else becoming outcasts. Many of them are socially inept from the get-go, unable to connect with people on an emotional level. Which goes back to my last point: there's something that happened to these kids that prevented them from developing the social skills to connect with others. And while we're on the subject, what exactly are they being outcast from? On a certain level these kids feel "outcast" because they're not able to reconcile who they really are and are trying to live up to some imagined ideal they've set for themselves (being part of the "in" crowd, dating the Captain of the Varsity Cheerleading Squad, etc.) Being viewed as an "outcast" has just as much to do with your own self-image, wants and desires as it does with people from other Social Groups shunning you. 4. So if we pass such legislation, what happens when the kid graduates from pointing out a door is open to actually walking through the door? Do we send them to jail when that happens? If not then, then when? 5. Even if you employed these youngsters to find your security holes, the Blackhats you referenced will simply try that much harder, motivated by either pride or money.
This is all great on the surface, but ultimately the following needs to be realized: a. Everyone is responsible for their own choices. b. There are no "hookers with a heart of gold". d. Social issues can be traced back to people misinterpreting what Society "owes" them (which is nothing).
This is what happens to EVERYONE when they grow up, get jobs, spouses, kids, responsibilities, etc. Life has a way of taking the fire out of you as you get older.
So why is this? Why do American-made items have to cost so goddamned much? Henry Ford founded his automobile manufacturing plant here in the good old USofA and outsold every other car manufacturer hands down. Why? Because Henry Ford figured out a way to mass-produce automobiles to keep the costs down.
Why can't this be done here? Why do we have to buy ARTISAN products? Are there no assembly-lines in the US producing forks and knives?
Of course there are, but the reason we cannot compete with Asia and other markets is because of the COST OF LABOR. Unions have made it impossible to compete in terms of labor cost. Are Unions a necessary evil? Of course, without them Corporations would exploit the shit out of their workers, history has taught us that. But, at the same time, Unions have also demanded Skilled-Worker-level wages for Unskilled Labor. How in the world can ANYONE justify $35 for a t-shirt? This is the argument I have with people who criticize me for not buying Organic - when the Organic prices are the same as non-Organic prices, then I'll support our local Organic Farmers. But, until that day, I cannot afford to buy Organic.
So, until the American Worker understands that they're in direct competition with foreign workers who are willing (or not) to work for a fraction of what the Union Worker makes, they're going to consistently fail.
Actually, the reason that current voting machines are insecure is because the people who volunteer to staff the polling places aren't doing their jobs. Check out a post I put on my blog in 2008 concerning my experience in the last election:
My wife (then fiance) went to vote and they attempted to give her paperwork meant for her mother. When my wife (then fiance) pointed this out, the Poll Judge said, "Oh, it's okay, nobody pays attention anyway."
The fact is with no one asking for ID, no one knowing which forms are which and no one knowing how the voting machines work, it's not the absence of online voting, but the PRESENCE of people as Poll Judges.
But there's more than just buying physical media - there's.mp3,.mp4 and those fancy-dancy new "Digital Copies" that come with DVDs and Blu-Ray copies that allow you to download the exact copy of the movie and put it on all of your portable devices. Which is great 'cause you can back up that copy in case of any problems.
If you're a fan of anything in recorded form, I don't understand how you would value streaming over owning. Sure, I'll admit, the ability to flick a few buttons and be able to watch a movie without actually getting up from my couch, or listening to a song, on demand, from anywhere I happen to be is appealing, but there are two major drawbacks to this model:
1. What happens when your provider stops offering that song or movie? I have a subscription to one of the major movie/television streaming services, and I went to watch a movie that I had placed in my favorites, only to find that the movie had been pulled from rotation. No reason, no apology, just gone. I have no idea when or if it will ever come back so, as far as my chances to watch that movie, I'm SOL. And what about the movies that aren't even IN rotation yet? Will they ever be in rotation? Who determines when a movie or song will be available? I also belong to a music streaming service, and they have albums available for streaming, with some of the songs (usually the most popular ones) not available for streaming. When will those songs be available? The problem is that streaming takes too much power out of your hands and puts it into the hands of the Services and Content Producers (ie Studios). But once you buy that CD or Blu-Ray, there's nothing that really can prevent you from watching or listening whenever you want.
2. What happens when your connection is dropped? What if you don't have access to the Internet? Right of the top of my head, I can think of one place where streaming isn't going to be the best option: the airplane. Unless you want to pay an outrageous fee to have Internet access on the plane, you're not enjoying streaming. Also, with many providers throttling or limiting the bandwidth you're allowed to use, your Service Provider may be another fly in the ointment when it comes to streaming. No connection, no streaming.
I admit, streaming is convenient, except when it's not. With SSD hard drives becoming smaller in form factor, larger in storage size and cheaper in cost, and the advent of tablets and smartphones, I truly believe that streaming may be something that's used BESIDE downloaded/owned content, rather than a REPLACEMENT to it. Until there's a way to address the two points I've made above, streaming will always be at a disadvantage.
This is EXACTLY the problem with the current state of hiring for IT. And the only way this makes sense is if HR is responsible for writing the job description, because one would think that a proper IT Manager would know that there's no one who can be an MCPIT, CCIE, PMP, DBA, etc. And even if someone DID happen to meet the requirements of the, "...Senior Unix Analyst/Engineer/Architect, Network Analyst/Engineer/Architect, MS Windows Analyst/Engineer/Architect, Storage SAN/NAS Analyst/Engineer/Architect, Firewall and Security Analyst/Engineer/Architect..." there's no way a company could afford them. I think that's what's most amazing to me is that there's this litany of requirements for the person to meet, AND THEN the company is going to pay them $70k annual salary. Really? You think someone who has 10+ years being a Network Engineer, Software Engineer, Storage Engineer and Security Engineer is going to work for anything less than $100k annually without bonuses? Good luck with that.
Honest people are honest - until they think the opportunity for them to get something for nothing presents itself. I can guarantee that when the average person learns that DRM is gone and they can "lend" and "borrow" books as they wish, not only will it signal the death of physical books, but paid authors and publishing as well.
And everyone who says that they'll pay for things now that publishers are talking about eliminating DRM, I can guarantee that'll last less than three purchases, because they'll find some OTHER reason to "justify" why they need to get the book (or movie or song) for free. If you're really interested in supporting your favorite author, actor, director or musical act, then suck it up and pay for the media, DRM or not.
The fact is, whether you want to admit it or not, the average person, given the chance, will rob you blind if they think they can legally get away with it.
You aging hippies are so adorable, it's a good thing you're all headed to the nursing home. I can't believe the naivete you express here - your PROTESTS got the Vietnam War stopped, et al? Trust me, your protests are the subject of ridicule by people of my generation. "Love-Ins" "Sit-Ins" and all the rest were nothing more than an amusing aberration, but they had no real value. The actual reason that these changes were made was that it was simply not cost-effective to NOT implement them. Hippies didn't make changes, slick Harvard lawyers and economists did.
"Change does not happen by force, but over time, through advancements in science, education, economics and technology." - me.
Slashdot Mirror
And eventually destroy Humanity and the Human Race.
Here's the major flaws in this argument:
1. The Internet is necessary. Sure there's people who "get along" without it, but there are people who pride themselves on getting along without most modern conveniences, but they have also accepted that they're no longer a part of Society (and they like it that way). The Internet is how things get done in our modern life. News, education, paying bills - all aspects of life have been tailored to the Internet. Studies have shown that children who have regular access to the Internet do better in school. The Internet has opened up a whole new method of allowing people who once found it difficult to stay in contact with loved ones to easily keep in touch. The Internet is a huge element of the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and other movements of Social Change.
2. The Cell phone is necessary, especially in emergency situations. Slip on ice and find yourself and your car in a gorge? Call for help. Taking a stroll in your neighborhood and see something suspicious? Call it in right there. Find your town has been decimated by a natural disaster and the phone lines are down? Use your cell to call for help or let loved ones know you're okay.
3. The car is no longer a luxury item. Once again, Society has adapted to the car and it's nearly impossible to get anything done (at least outside a major metropolitan area) without the use of a vehicle. And while I have many friends who live in the city and have a perfectly fine time without the use of an automobile, at least two or three times a month they rent a Zipcar (or the equivalent) to get things done like grocery shopping or visiting family outside the city.
4. I take issue with the idea that kids get jobs after school because they don't have "dependable parents". My parents were VERY dependable, but they wanted me to work to teach me things like interpersonal skills and responsibility. My children will get jobs when they're old enough for the very same reason. And there was a time when minimum-wage jobs were the sole domain of the under-18 crowd. Now they've been forced out by other groups who, for whatever reason, have been forced to take said jobs.
5. A guaranteed income supplement is a handout. And given the state of things in Washington right now, how guaranteed will it be if the government shuts down?
6. The problem with upping the minimum wage is that each state handles their own MW, so if one raises their MW but the surrounding states don't, then businesses start to move out of the state with the higher MW. How do I know? Because it's happening here in Illinois and every day we read or hear about a business who's moving to Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan or Missouri because the MW is lower in those states. You can cry and beat your fists and say, "Well, those companies don't care about the worker!", but the fact is that there's no companies coming IN to offset the ones going out, so then it must be ALL companies who don't care then, right?
But, I agree with your first sentence: let's set a minimum basic level of acceptable living and then move from there. The problem is that, you truly will start to have class warfare because there will be some areas that have people high above that level, some well above that level, some just above that level, some right at that level and then some below that level. And then people will start pointing fingers and saying, "Look at those people in the area high above the level! They're the one's responsible for this!"
Why does everything that has traditionally been done a certain way (and successfully) have to automatically be subject to the whims of those who want to do it another way, "just to see what would happen"? The Doctor has traditionally been Male. And people have been just fine with that. What are the motivations to make The Doctor female? There are none, save for one: because we live in an age where certain types of people cannot just let something be what it is or let those who enjoy something just enjoy it as they like it.
I, for one, am against making The Doctor a woman if just for the reason that it won't stop there. Already I heard on BBC radio someone suggesting that The Doctor could be a Transgendered Lesbian if they wanted. And that's the problem: I don't want The Doctor's sexuality to become part of the show. If you make The Doctor a woman, then Doctor Who will have reached it's "Moonlighting" moment. And then every group will want their own version of The Doctor and the show will be less about the adventures of the Last Galifreyan and all about, "Oooo, will we have an Asian Female this time around? What about an African Homosexual?"
Leave The Doctor's gender alone and concentrate on writing great stories.
Besides, "Madman with a box" sounds a lot better than "Crazy lady with a box".
Because it couldn't be the need to tailor the school day to fit Mom and Dad's work schedules -
Or the mountains of un-necessary homework that the kids (even in grade school) get -
Or the constant barrage from teachers and coaches that the kids need to have at least one if not two extra curricular activities -
Or the insane concept that kids have to attend a minimum of seven classes every day -
Research has shown that the average child between the ages of 10 and 20 require more sleep than previously thought to accommodate for their physical and mental changes. But instead of tailoring the school day to account for that, we'll blame laptops, smartphones, tablets and console gaming.
Here's some ideas:
1. Just like in college, have some classes offered MWF and some offered TR. That way, there's more time in the day for a kid to work on homework, and find their teacher if they have a question.
2. Let's put more money towards buses, and allow kids to go to school from 9 am to 4 pm, instead of forcing them to get up at 5am to get ready for school.
3. How about some teachers (I'm looking at you, math teachers) stick with assigning homework that teaches the basics and offers the more advanced concepts as extra credit. If I'm new to Calculus, it's better that you make sure I understand the basics of Calculus before "challenging" me with advanced topics before I'm ready.
4. With less classes per day, extracurricular activities could be pursued during the school day, rather than forcing kids to do them after school and delaying when they can get to their homework.
The problem isn't the distractions, it's the organization of the school day itself.
I have to comment on this line from the article, "...Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars..."
Rational compared to what? What exactly does a Segway do better than any current form of transportation out there?
Can it replace the bicycle? No, since the Segway can run out of power where it cannot be recharged. Plus the bicycle has had over 100 years of innovation to make it work with the rider. I've ridden a Segway, it's not as fantastic a ride as a bicycle.
Can it replace the automobile? Not if you need to go over 5 mph (for beginners). Or uphill. Or more than 25 miles. Or if it rains. Or if you have to go grocery shopping. In terms of city driving, the scooter is a much more sensible vehicle.
The Segway "failed" because it's a niche device. It was a device created without a market, and it had to manufacture its own. It's perfect for zipping around a campus, but not much else. And let's face it, can you image a city full of people riding these things? Accidents galore, without the benefit of safety harnesses and crumple zones.
And Google Glass isn't going to "fail" because you might look like a dork (need I mention current fashions that do the same thing yet a good portion of the population still loves them?), it's going to "fail" because of all the privacy issues associated with the product.
Because of laptops, tablets and smartphones (unless we're counting laptops as PCs, which I can understand).
Most users don't need everything that a PC offers, especially the bloatware pre-installed from companies such as Sony, Lenovo, HP or Dell. Most users require very little from their computing device: e-mail, social media and web browsing. And smartphones and tablets provide all those, in a compact form-factor, along with texting/messaging.
This isn't a huge mystery. The market is shifting to sleeker, more task-focused computing. The PC is going to be relegated to those who require it, and the tablet and smartphone are taking over the task of more general computing.
This is a tactic that's not just limited to interviews for tech positions, this is becoming a scourge amongst all service-based positions. My wife has twice been the victim of this, and she works in marketing/advertising. What happens is the interviewer says, "Here's a scenario, create a quick campaign slogan or copy to address the needs of the client," under the guise of "getting a feel for your skillset". So the candidate performs the work and then either doesn't get the job or gets a second "interview" in which they're asked to perform the same task, only this time with a bit more detail. Recruiters are well aware of this process and are asking their clients to notify them immediately when they're being asked to "provide examples". Your resume and experience (and in the case of the marketing people, their "book" of previous work), combined with more general job-specific questions should be enough to give a potential employer a good idea of your skills. The interview isn't actually about getting to know what you can do, it's more about gauging how you'll fit in with the corporate environment and the personalities on the team you'll be joining.
And make no mistake, having an interview candidate "solve" your issues for you isn't about the existing team being inept, it's purely a method of obtaining free labor.
This romantic notion of "...sometimes take chances on things we wouldn't otherwise try..." when it comes to dating is bullshit. When trying a new restaurant, sure it works just fine, but that's also because you know that, at most, you'll have one bad meal. But relationships are not restaurants, and regardless of what Ludlow has to say, compatibility is key.
The reason for the high divorce rate isn't Feminism or a casual attitude toward Marriage, it's the concept that "Opposites Attract" should be the norm. Opposites Attract doesn't work. It's fun for a month or two, but then the changes start. "I love him, but I wish he'd do..." or "I love her, but I wish she'd stop..." are the death knells of relationships. People need to learn that if someone you're dating isn't compatible with you, don't try to change them, simply end the relationship. If Tommy doesn't ring Sally's bell, then Sally doesn't have to feel she needs to stay with him while they're dating. The dumbest thing I've ever heard is, "Oh, I know that makes me crazy, but that will all change once we get married."
What's at the heart of the matter is that young people don't know who they are, nor take the time to learn. There's so much pressure to get married and pop out kids that people in their twenties don't take the time to learn about who they are and what makes them tick. So when it comes to picking a mate, they don't know what they're looking for. Once someone knows themselves, then they can seriously start looking for someone with whom they'd like to spend the rest of their lives, and THAT'S when sites like eHarmony and Match.com show their true strength.
In the words of RuPaul, "If you don't love yourself, how in the hell you gonna love somebody else?"
While I agree that this is more about the shooter than the tools used to carry out this heinous act, and that the idea of someone with mental issue being allowed to legally possess a firearm is ludicrous, no one seems to be focused on the two things that stand in the way of passing laws to prevent the mentally ill from legally owning a gun: self-awareness and privacy.
1. The crazy people don't "know" they're crazy. Adam was getting treatment for a disorder, but only because someone recognized his need for treatment and got it for him when he was a minor. But what about when he gets older? Has anyone ever had the pleasure of knowing someone with a mental illness? In my experience, about 30% (roughly) are self-aware enough to admit they have a problem and seek treatment. The other 70% don't admit they have a disorder and won't seek treatment for various reasons, but mostly because they don't want to be labeled as "crazy" or "mentally ill" (there's a whole other argument about how we as a Society are partially to blame for that, but it's beyond the scope of the discussion here). So if they don't seek treatment, who will be able to classify them properly?
2. Violating one's right to privacy. If a doctor cannot tell the whole world that someone has VD or HIV, what makes you think that a therapist will be able to release information about their patients' mental health? Even if someone seeks treatment, there's a litany of legal precedent to keep their treatment a secret, even from agencies who would be regulating the sale of arms. The only way a law which restricts the sale of firearms to the mentally ill would work is if there were a database of who's diagnosed as mentally ill, and I can pretty much guarantee that that's not going to happen. At the very least, it would open the door to keeping a database of other people who would be considered "threats" to Society, which is something I know no sane person would advocate.
Do we as a Society need to do a better job of treating the mentally ill, both in terms of facilities and general attitudes? Of course. But this idea of having a way of identifying the mentally ill for purposes of restricting their ability to legally own a firearm is simply not practical.
Plus, even if it did pass, there's still a huge black market for firearms of any type, and THOSE people don't care if you're mentally ill or not, so long as you have the cash.
I understand most of the arguments against the dollar bill (and penny, nickle, etc.), but I don't believe this has been completely thought through.
First, 4 billion over 30 years? Right now, on the scale our World operates, 4 billion really isn't a whole lot to worry about (considering our deficit is in the Trillions). Take that further to $140+ million per year and it's tantamount to an individual who makes $150,000 annually saving $1.40 a year (assuming there's a direct comparison between the US's $15 trillion GDP and the $150,000 annual salary).
Then there's the question about with what we'd replace the paper money. Many here have suggested using coins, but, for me, $20 in paper money is a lot more convenient than twenty large coins in my pocket. Plus, even though it was suggested as a joke at the beginning of this thread, there are professions in which smaller denoms are heavily used, and I can't imagine a stripper or bartender wanting to head home with an extra 20 pounds of metal in her purse.
As far as the vending machines go, there's a perfect solution for that - start accepting debit cards or NFC and stop taking any sort of currency altogether. Of course, they may complain about the cost of having to service the machines because of the bills getting stuck, but, roughly translated, what they're actually saying is, "If we didn't have to accept dollar bills, we could let go of most of our service technicians." They may be annoying, but dollar bills clearly maintain someone's job security.
So while I see all the arguments against the dollar bill, just like with may "great ideas", no one has mentioned the downsides to eliminating it.
And as far as the penny goes, I don't know how factual it is, but there's an episode of "The West Wing" that talks about one reason we'll never ditch the penny - unless you move Lincoln's face to another coin, Illinois (and Kentucky for that matter) will always lobby against eliminating the penny.
I don't want this to come off as snarky or accusing, but do you have children? I wondered why parents did all the things that they did in relation to their children - then I had them. And unless you're a completely self-absorbed person, having children completely changes your World outlook.
My mom did the same stuff as your mom did, until Adam Walsh was abducted. After that, all the wandering off and leaving me alone in the store ceased. And now that I have kids, I completely understand why. There's certain shows (detective dramas mostly) that, while the episodes dealing with crimes against children always upset me, I cannot even watch those episodes now, because it hits too close to home.
Regardless, it's not news reports that motivate parents into action. News reports are about someone else's kids. What gets parents paranoid is simply the THOUGHT of something happening to their child. Some are more susceptible to this than others, but all good parents have been woken up in the middle of the night over the image of their child missing or being taken.
The real question concerning V-Chipping your kids is this: are you doing it to recover your child, or to find the offender? Because I know, for me, my primary goal would be to get my child back safely, but getting my hands on the abductor would be a delicious bonus. I'm totally against this idea on principle, so it doesn't matter, but I can see where it would be appealing to many parents.
I was just watching "Fight Club" and I realized that if Anonymous and TGS want to protest these banks and politicians, then why don't they just do what Project Mayhem did without all the destruction of property: alleviate everyone's outstanding credit card and other unsecured debt? If they really want to convince me that they're doing this to fight for the "little guy" then help out the little guy. Until then, they're only doing this for their own satisfaction.
There shouldn't be a requirement for ID? Allow me to share my experience in the last election and show EXACTLY why there needs to be some ID checking:
http://brecheez.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-we-dont-need-to-hack-voting.html
Not to mention in the same year when my wife went to vote she was handed her mother's voting materials. When she brought this up to the Election Judge they just said, "Oh don't worry about it, no one really checks anyway." Theoretically, my wife could have voted in her mother's name, left the building, had lunch, returned to the polling place and then voted under her own name.
I demand that they check my ID when I go to the Polling Place, why wouldn't I want them to make sure that I am who I say I am?
But I took both COBOL and BASIC in high school, which could serve as the "critical mass" of educational institutions mentioned in the abstract.
If you're only making $1.98 a day, you're not using a smartphone. And if you're only making $1.98 a day, you should spend more time getting an education (especially if it's studying for your Citizenship exam) and making yourself a more marketable employee than playing Angry Birds.
The reason G+ is getting such good reviews from their users is the fact that the only people on G+ right now are those who prefer it over FB. This isn't to imply one is "better" than the other, but rather that there are people who are Facebook users and people who are Google+ users. I don't understand why everything in technology has to be a competition. Windows vs. Mac, iOS vs Android, Linux vs. - everybody. I for one find all this bickering very, very tiring. If your friend likes a different OS or software than you do, that doesn't make them an "idiot", it just means they find that the other OS or software meets their needs than the one you prefer.
THANK YOU, YOUR $0.02 HAS BEEN DEPOSITED. HAVE A NICE DAY.
1. I don't think that the high-level "hackers" you reference are the larger part of the iceberg, I think it's actually quite the opposite: think of it more like an inverted iceberg. Just like anything, there are loads of low-level "hackers" who are careless or inexperienced, but the playing field narrows as skill level increases.
2. The risk you run with providing budding "hackers" with the tools they need to develop their skills to be used, "...within the boundaries of the law..." is akin to improving a sociopath's shooting skills. The fact is, if someone doesn't have a problem with breaking into, well, anything, using a computer ("hacking") there's a deeper issue there that needs to be addressed.
3. I know many people who are self-described "hackers" and let me tell you, they don't need any help from anyone else becoming outcasts. Many of them are socially inept from the get-go, unable to connect with people on an emotional level. Which goes back to my last point: there's something that happened to these kids that prevented them from developing the social skills to connect with others. And while we're on the subject, what exactly are they being outcast from? On a certain level these kids feel "outcast" because they're not able to reconcile who they really are and are trying to live up to some imagined ideal they've set for themselves (being part of the "in" crowd, dating the Captain of the Varsity Cheerleading Squad, etc.) Being viewed as an "outcast" has just as much to do with your own self-image, wants and desires as it does with people from other Social Groups shunning you.
4. So if we pass such legislation, what happens when the kid graduates from pointing out a door is open to actually walking through the door? Do we send them to jail when that happens? If not then, then when?
5. Even if you employed these youngsters to find your security holes, the Blackhats you referenced will simply try that much harder, motivated by either pride or money.
This is all great on the surface, but ultimately the following needs to be realized:
a. Everyone is responsible for their own choices.
b. There are no "hookers with a heart of gold".
d. Social issues can be traced back to people misinterpreting what Society "owes" them (which is nothing).
This is what happens to EVERYONE when they grow up, get jobs, spouses, kids, responsibilities, etc. Life has a way of taking the fire out of you as you get older.
So why is this? Why do American-made items have to cost so goddamned much? Henry Ford founded his automobile manufacturing plant here in the good old USofA and outsold every other car manufacturer hands down. Why? Because Henry Ford figured out a way to mass-produce automobiles to keep the costs down.
Why can't this be done here? Why do we have to buy ARTISAN products? Are there no assembly-lines in the US producing forks and knives?
Of course there are, but the reason we cannot compete with Asia and other markets is because of the COST OF LABOR. Unions have made it impossible to compete in terms of labor cost. Are Unions a necessary evil? Of course, without them Corporations would exploit the shit out of their workers, history has taught us that. But, at the same time, Unions have also demanded Skilled-Worker-level wages for Unskilled Labor. How in the world can ANYONE justify $35 for a t-shirt? This is the argument I have with people who criticize me for not buying Organic - when the Organic prices are the same as non-Organic prices, then I'll support our local Organic Farmers. But, until that day, I cannot afford to buy Organic.
So, until the American Worker understands that they're in direct competition with foreign workers who are willing (or not) to work for a fraction of what the Union Worker makes, they're going to consistently fail.
Actually, the reason that current voting machines are insecure is because the people who volunteer to staff the polling places aren't doing their jobs. Check out a post I put on my blog in 2008 concerning my experience in the last election:
http://brecheez.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-we-dont-need-to-hack-voting.html
My wife (then fiance) went to vote and they attempted to give her paperwork meant for her mother. When my wife (then fiance) pointed this out, the Poll Judge said, "Oh, it's okay, nobody pays attention anyway."
The fact is with no one asking for ID, no one knowing which forms are which and no one knowing how the voting machines work, it's not the absence of online voting, but the PRESENCE of people as Poll Judges.
But there's more than just buying physical media - there's .mp3, .mp4 and those fancy-dancy new "Digital Copies" that come with DVDs and Blu-Ray copies that allow you to download the exact copy of the movie and put it on all of your portable devices. Which is great 'cause you can back up that copy in case of any problems.
If you're a fan of anything in recorded form, I don't understand how you would value streaming over owning. Sure, I'll admit, the ability to flick a few buttons and be able to watch a movie without actually getting up from my couch, or listening to a song, on demand, from anywhere I happen to be is appealing, but there are two major drawbacks to this model:
1. What happens when your provider stops offering that song or movie? I have a subscription to one of the major movie/television streaming services, and I went to watch a movie that I had placed in my favorites, only to find that the movie had been pulled from rotation. No reason, no apology, just gone. I have no idea when or if it will ever come back so, as far as my chances to watch that movie, I'm SOL. And what about the movies that aren't even IN rotation yet? Will they ever be in rotation? Who determines when a movie or song will be available? I also belong to a music streaming service, and they have albums available for streaming, with some of the songs (usually the most popular ones) not available for streaming. When will those songs be available?
The problem is that streaming takes too much power out of your hands and puts it into the hands of the Services and Content Producers (ie Studios). But once you buy that CD or Blu-Ray, there's nothing that really can prevent you from watching or listening whenever you want.
2. What happens when your connection is dropped? What if you don't have access to the Internet? Right of the top of my head, I can think of one place where streaming isn't going to be the best option: the airplane. Unless you want to pay an outrageous fee to have Internet access on the plane, you're not enjoying streaming. Also, with many providers throttling or limiting the bandwidth you're allowed to use, your Service Provider may be another fly in the ointment when it comes to streaming. No connection, no streaming.
I admit, streaming is convenient, except when it's not. With SSD hard drives becoming smaller in form factor, larger in storage size and cheaper in cost, and the advent of tablets and smartphones, I truly believe that streaming may be something that's used BESIDE downloaded/owned content, rather than a REPLACEMENT to it. Until there's a way to address the two points I've made above, streaming will always be at a disadvantage.
This is EXACTLY the problem with the current state of hiring for IT. And the only way this makes sense is if HR is responsible for writing the job description, because one would think that a proper IT Manager would know that there's no one who can be an MCPIT, CCIE, PMP, DBA, etc. And even if someone DID happen to meet the requirements of the, "...Senior Unix Analyst/Engineer/Architect, Network Analyst/Engineer/Architect, MS Windows Analyst/Engineer/Architect, Storage SAN/NAS Analyst/Engineer/Architect, Firewall and Security Analyst/Engineer/Architect..." there's no way a company could afford them.
I think that's what's most amazing to me is that there's this litany of requirements for the person to meet, AND THEN the company is going to pay them $70k annual salary.
Really?
You think someone who has 10+ years being a Network Engineer, Software Engineer, Storage Engineer and Security Engineer is going to work for anything less than $100k annually without bonuses? Good luck with that.
Honest people are honest - until they think the opportunity for them to get something for nothing presents itself.
I can guarantee that when the average person learns that DRM is gone and they can "lend" and "borrow" books as they wish, not only will it signal the death of physical books, but paid authors and publishing as well.
And everyone who says that they'll pay for things now that publishers are talking about eliminating DRM, I can guarantee that'll last less than three purchases, because they'll find some OTHER reason to "justify" why they need to get the book (or movie or song) for free. If you're really interested in supporting your favorite author, actor, director or musical act, then suck it up and pay for the media, DRM or not.
The fact is, whether you want to admit it or not, the average person, given the chance, will rob you blind if they think they can legally get away with it.
You aging hippies are so adorable, it's a good thing you're all headed to the nursing home.
I can't believe the naivete you express here - your PROTESTS got the Vietnam War stopped, et al?
Trust me, your protests are the subject of ridicule by people of my generation. "Love-Ins" "Sit-Ins" and all the rest were nothing more than an amusing aberration, but they had no real value. The actual reason that these changes were made was that it was simply not cost-effective to NOT implement them. Hippies didn't make changes, slick Harvard lawyers and economists did.
"Change does not happen by force, but over time, through advancements in science, education, economics and technology." - me.