Does anyone take these rote memorization tests seriously to begin? I'm honestly baffled by the sheer amount of stupidity it takes to mention test scores as if they truly mean anything.
Oh they mean something all right... Just not what people think. It says how well you can take their test, which is only an indicator of how well you do in college.
My daughter scored mid-range in the SAT so you'd expect she's a "C" student right?
I wish I had her GPA. She's pulling straight A's so far. The test are OK, in as far as they go, but they are far from a perfect tool to measure something as complex as human intelligence.
However, according to this article, it was my fast FIOS connection's fault...
That's paramount to the "corn-flake effect". Many people who are involved in car accidents actually ate corn flakes for breakfast. How scary is that?!??
I'll bet almost all of them drank something with H2O in it within the last 24 hours too! It's time we ban this stuff.... For the children!!!
Naw, My connection is 25Mbps/25Mbps (Up from 5Mbps/2Mbps) and I didn't get any smarter.... In fact, I sometimes think it was a dumb move as my wallet sure seems lighter these days.
Actually, if you look at the demographics of the last presidential election, it's not all roses for the democrats. I'd not be so sure about your party being "kind of the hill" for all that long. You see, if you look at voters over 30 years old, they voted for the republican more often than not. What got Obama in office was the under 30 demographic, which where only starting to become aware of politics. Now they went for Obama in a big way, but in the end, the margins where usually pretty close.
Now Obama isn't running for office ever again, so you need to start thinking about what got the under 30's to vote for him in such unusually large numbers? Neither you nor I know that answer, but we do know that true to history, Obama's approval ratings have dropped well below those of any president in recent history (even the last Bush). The question is, will the under 30's show up for the next democratic nominee like they did for Obama? You better be careful on that front with who you nominate because I don't think your obvious choice is going to appeal to this demographic and I'm betting that as these people get older, they are going to realize they've been played. ObamaCare and other social programs are not selling well with this group, and as they get older it will only play worse.
But the real problem for your side is that Hillary and Obama only "play" conservative. They are not really. They still are classic "tax and spend" (or more to the truth "just spend") liberals. Spending is a short term strategy, and unless you don't grow the GDP or raise taxes really bad things are going to happen and the 30 somethings are *really* going to be in a pickle financially. I"m sure the puppy love for the democrats will start to look like a bad idea to at least some of them. The fact that democrats are beholden to large corporate interests and use power as a money grab for their friends is going to start becoming known, that they are just politicians is apparent and that they just tell you what you want to hear to advance their own ends will drive down both turnout and percentages voting democrat in this demographic.
This is not to say the republicans don't have issues. They do the "just spend" thing way too much themselves. Plus they have a woeful lack of PR skills at times. But I actually see that improving. There are times when you just sit back and shut up because there's nothing you can say that's going to help you. Republicans have been in such a position with Obama since he took office, yet they kept babbling in front of the press. They are learning to just shut-up and let the issue die when there isn't anything they can do. If they take the senate, that will give them a lot more control of what issues come up, they will be able to drive the national debate a whole lot more. I expect them to use that to their advantage because they can wrap this "do nothing" mantel on democrats who seem to know how to keep their traps shut when they are in no-win situations (best case for you) or if they choose to talk the republicans can wrap them in knots by picking the issues everybody gets to talk about.
So, I'd be careful making confident claims about democrats being in power forever. Being overconfident is not a good policy. You may be winning right now, but the competition is snapping at your heels. Don't forget that.
Which is why we have elections and why we discuss what they do.
I'm personally tired of all the acrimony over political appointees doing what they do by the opposition. My party isn't in power right now, but my attitude is "The other side won the election so they get to do what they want."
That doesn't mean I don't turn a critical eye on their choices, but I'm am not going to just hit the default "They're democrats so it's a bad choice" setting. I'm an equal opportunity criticizer, so if you are a republican and you advance something I think is daft and stupid, I'm going to say so.
Problem is, it seems that the default setting for a lot of this has become more about party affiliation and less about right and wrong so we get this kind of "you better not make this choice because the other party will change it when we get into power" tripe. It's not helpful to anybody and only leads to the making of even worse decisions for the people.
One wonders where this mentality comes from though.... I have my theories (ok I think I know) but I'll keep it to myself because most would consider what I had to say about that hyper partisan.
Oh please. This is exactly how it happens today. The only reason you cannot see it is that much stock is held by institutions (mutual funds, retirement funds, other companies) and not individuals so it's not easy to see who's pulling the strings, but if you start looking at who or what company owns what stock, and start tracing who is getting elected to which companies board of directors it's pretty easy to connect the dots and find out who's pulling the strings.
Come on, all this is public record for the most part. Dig a bit.
Well, I admit that practically that's how it seems to work, but in reality that's not exactly true.
Generally, you have a number of major stock holders who are individuals, or holding companies like mutual funds or retirement plans. This group usually holds enough stock to form alliances and pack the board of directors with their people. These people then pack the executive management with their people who hire their people and so on. However, it is totally possible for companies to be controlled by a single share holder or group of individuals choosing to vote together. Just buy or control the votes of enough shares and you too can run with the big boys of wall street.
It never happens (or rarely happens) because it can cost you millions of dollars to buy and hold a large portion of a company. But in reality, you can do it with enough cash.
How did post war Detroit compare to other other industrial cities in Europe on the key "not bombed to near oblivion" metric?
Might that have helped with profits and allowed relatively good pay?
You have a point, but as it stands now, Detroit might be better off had it been bombed into oblivion. At least the buildings would have already been knocked down and you'd only have to haul them off.
And simply say "For us to be concerned about a Republican FCC, we would need to believe that it is possible for a Republican to win a presidential election. Given the current climate, that won't happen in your lifetime, Senator"
Don't know if I'm willing to say that yet. The current election cycle seems to be sliding towards the R side taking over the Senate, and there is little chance of them loosing seats in the house. Of course this is the out year of a lame duck president, which generally slides away from the white house's party, but the complexion of what happens totally changes if the Republicans take control in the senate.
How that plays out in 2016 is anybodies guess, except I can tell you that the president and his party will be out of control of more of the optics in Washington, which means that the republicans will control what gets discussed and what issues they deal with. Remember the Democrats invoked the "Nuclear option" and changed the long standing senate rules so the republicans will be able to get bills on the presidents desk, any bill they choose, and strong arm him into making a very public veto or striking concessions. He will either play ball and alienate the Democratic base, or mess things up so badly signing that veto line over and over that the middle will abandon droves. Either way, the next two years won't go well for the democrats. My guess is he will just play golf for the next three years, which will be really bad for his party and alienate the majority the 20 somethings that voted for him. But all this is if the republicans take the senate which is not a foregone conclusion, yet..
You only hope for 2016, is that the Senate doesn't slip away, or that the republicans mess it up so badly nominating their candidate in 2 years that even I won't vote for them. Your only real chance is slipping away so you better hold onto that senate.
A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.
What ever the democratic appointees do, they do. They got appointed, it's their call. If they want to be partisan, so be it.
The really sad thing is that the FCC commissioners used to be about sensible regulation and doing what's right for all, now it's who's paying who under the table and which campaign got money from which company.
Have we learned nothing from the Light Squared debacle? That whole thing was such a boondoggle technically, but no, the FCC had to string all that along. Stuff like that needs to stop and this is just the latest example. Come on folks, THINK about it and do the right thing for the PEOPLE you serve, not because it makes you or your party the most cash.
1. A copy of the "Mythical Man Month" by Fredrick Brooks and being told to read it.
2. A set of closing prices for every stock on the NY exchange for the next 20 years with the advice to become an investment banker..
If #2 isn't possible, then sitting down with somebody who could explain that you get what you negotiate, not what you deserve, so don't settle for what you get.
Yes, it's in the platform in Texas.. SO? Such verbiage plays well here.
That does not make it a campaign. It's like saying this is what I would vote for repeal if given the chance. There are ZERO republicans out trying to push legislation to abolish the federal minimum wage, then basing their campaign on such actions. Would we prefer to do away with the minimum wage? Yep, already said that. but you said there was a republican campaign to repeal it, there is not, not even in Texas where it would play well.
The only people campaigning on this are democrats... Only they have to trump up this idea that republicans are actively out to abolish the minimum wage when it's not happening.
Exaggerate much? Republicans don't want to get rid of the minimum wage.
You should try paying attention.
"I think it's outlived its usefulness," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. "It may have been of some value back in the Great Depression. I would vote to repeal the minimum wage."
It's particularly unpalatable for Republicans, as the majority of them oppose to raising the minimum wage at all. "I think it's outlived its usefulness," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. "It may have been of some value back in the Great Depression. I would vote to repeal the minimum wage."
I'd vote to get rid of it it too, but I'm not running a campaign to repeal it. Joe Barton isn't campaigning to repeal it either. You are claiming republicans campaign to get rid of it. Big difference. There is no campaign by republicans to get rid of it.
Watch Republicans campaign again to get rid of the minimum wage.
Exaggerate much? Republicans don't wan to get rid of the minimum wage. Why would anybody campaign to get rid of the minimum wage? It would be stupid to just out and hand the democrats a loaded guy and say "Shoot me in the face!" trying to get rid of the minimum wage.
This republican knows of nobody trying to get rid of the minimum wage and I dare say you don't either.
BUT, that's not to say the democrats are not manufacturing such outrageous claims about republicans (i.e. lying about republicans intent) and turn the opposition of RAISING the minimum wage into something it's not.
Last 6 years? The economy has been stagnated long before that. We had declining job growth since roughly 2005 and wages haven't kept pace for nearly 2 decades.
Not arguing that. But the last 6 have been pretty bad and the only experience most of the readers of Shashdot generally have.
If manufacturing's biggest variable cost is labor, companies will flock to the place where their variable costs are the lowest.
So, the question is, have we started to reach wage parity now by virtue of wage reductions in the USA (race to the bottom) or the fact that wages in places like China have reached parity?
IMHO, it's both. The standard of living here in the USA has stagnated just like the last 6 years of the economy and the demands of labor outside the USA has driven costs up. But we are severely limited in this country because we face a huge increase in energy costs once the economy starts to actually do more than tread water. Manufacturing won't return, not yet.
Rushing any new technology pretty much makes it a given that it won't work as advertised. This is even more true when the buyer is the government and they are trying to calm fear.
Slashdot Mirror
Big "D"?
Do you mean Dallas?
Does anyone take these rote memorization tests seriously to begin? I'm honestly baffled by the sheer amount of stupidity it takes to mention test scores as if they truly mean anything.
Oh they mean something all right... Just not what people think. It says how well you can take their test, which is only an indicator of how well you do in college.
My daughter scored mid-range in the SAT so you'd expect she's a "C" student right?
I wish I had her GPA. She's pulling straight A's so far. The test are OK, in as far as they go, but they are far from a perfect tool to measure something as complex as human intelligence.
However, according to this article, it was my fast FIOS connection's fault...
That's paramount to the "corn-flake effect". Many people who are involved in car accidents actually ate corn flakes for breakfast. How scary is that?!??
I'll bet almost all of them drank something with H2O in it within the last 24 hours too! It's time we ban this stuff.... For the children!!!
Maybe - smarter people have faster internet ?
Naw, My connection is 25Mbps/25Mbps (Up from 5Mbps/2Mbps) and I didn't get any smarter.... In fact, I sometimes think it was a dumb move as my wallet sure seems lighter these days.
Actually, if you look at the demographics of the last presidential election, it's not all roses for the democrats. I'd not be so sure about your party being "kind of the hill" for all that long. You see, if you look at voters over 30 years old, they voted for the republican more often than not. What got Obama in office was the under 30 demographic, which where only starting to become aware of politics. Now they went for Obama in a big way, but in the end, the margins where usually pretty close.
Now Obama isn't running for office ever again, so you need to start thinking about what got the under 30's to vote for him in such unusually large numbers? Neither you nor I know that answer, but we do know that true to history, Obama's approval ratings have dropped well below those of any president in recent history (even the last Bush). The question is, will the under 30's show up for the next democratic nominee like they did for Obama? You better be careful on that front with who you nominate because I don't think your obvious choice is going to appeal to this demographic and I'm betting that as these people get older, they are going to realize they've been played. ObamaCare and other social programs are not selling well with this group, and as they get older it will only play worse.
But the real problem for your side is that Hillary and Obama only "play" conservative. They are not really. They still are classic "tax and spend" (or more to the truth "just spend") liberals. Spending is a short term strategy, and unless you don't grow the GDP or raise taxes really bad things are going to happen and the 30 somethings are *really* going to be in a pickle financially. I"m sure the puppy love for the democrats will start to look like a bad idea to at least some of them. The fact that democrats are beholden to large corporate interests and use power as a money grab for their friends is going to start becoming known, that they are just politicians is apparent and that they just tell you what you want to hear to advance their own ends will drive down both turnout and percentages voting democrat in this demographic.
This is not to say the republicans don't have issues. They do the "just spend" thing way too much themselves. Plus they have a woeful lack of PR skills at times. But I actually see that improving. There are times when you just sit back and shut up because there's nothing you can say that's going to help you. Republicans have been in such a position with Obama since he took office, yet they kept babbling in front of the press. They are learning to just shut-up and let the issue die when there isn't anything they can do. If they take the senate, that will give them a lot more control of what issues come up, they will be able to drive the national debate a whole lot more. I expect them to use that to their advantage because they can wrap this "do nothing" mantel on democrats who seem to know how to keep their traps shut when they are in no-win situations (best case for you) or if they choose to talk the republicans can wrap them in knots by picking the issues everybody gets to talk about.
So, I'd be careful making confident claims about democrats being in power forever. Being overconfident is not a good policy. You may be winning right now, but the competition is snapping at your heels. Don't forget that.
He got 33 months for being STUPID.... But crime usually is.
That number is just what the film distributor's marketing department *claims* they lost.
Personally I think the real number is a magnitude or two lower. Did the first movie even do that many copies?
All laws are bad.
Especially that one..
The MPAA can sue you, but they cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. That's just civil court though.
Problem with this guy's story is that what he did was illegal too. It was the illegal part that got him the jail time.
Which is why we have elections and why we discuss what they do.
I'm personally tired of all the acrimony over political appointees doing what they do by the opposition. My party isn't in power right now, but my attitude is "The other side won the election so they get to do what they want."
That doesn't mean I don't turn a critical eye on their choices, but I'm am not going to just hit the default "They're democrats so it's a bad choice" setting. I'm an equal opportunity criticizer, so if you are a republican and you advance something I think is daft and stupid, I'm going to say so.
Problem is, it seems that the default setting for a lot of this has become more about party affiliation and less about right and wrong so we get this kind of "you better not make this choice because the other party will change it when we get into power" tripe. It's not helpful to anybody and only leads to the making of even worse decisions for the people.
One wonders where this mentality comes from though.... I have my theories (ok I think I know) but I'll keep it to myself because most would consider what I had to say about that hyper partisan.
Oh please. This is exactly how it happens today. The only reason you cannot see it is that much stock is held by institutions (mutual funds, retirement funds, other companies) and not individuals so it's not easy to see who's pulling the strings, but if you start looking at who or what company owns what stock, and start tracing who is getting elected to which companies board of directors it's pretty easy to connect the dots and find out who's pulling the strings.
Come on, all this is public record for the most part. Dig a bit.
Well, I admit that practically that's how it seems to work, but in reality that's not exactly true.
Generally, you have a number of major stock holders who are individuals, or holding companies like mutual funds or retirement plans. This group usually holds enough stock to form alliances and pack the board of directors with their people. These people then pack the executive management with their people who hire their people and so on. However, it is totally possible for companies to be controlled by a single share holder or group of individuals choosing to vote together. Just buy or control the votes of enough shares and you too can run with the big boys of wall street.
It never happens (or rarely happens) because it can cost you millions of dollars to buy and hold a large portion of a company. But in reality, you can do it with enough cash.
How did post war Detroit compare to other other industrial cities in Europe on the key "not bombed to near oblivion" metric?
Might that have helped with profits and allowed relatively good pay?
You have a point, but as it stands now, Detroit might be better off had it been bombed into oblivion. At least the buildings would have already been knocked down and you'd only have to haul them off.
And simply say "For us to be concerned about a Republican FCC, we would need to believe that it is possible for a Republican to win a presidential election. Given the current climate, that won't happen in your lifetime, Senator"
Don't know if I'm willing to say that yet. The current election cycle seems to be sliding towards the R side taking over the Senate, and there is little chance of them loosing seats in the house. Of course this is the out year of a lame duck president, which generally slides away from the white house's party, but the complexion of what happens totally changes if the Republicans take control in the senate.
How that plays out in 2016 is anybodies guess, except I can tell you that the president and his party will be out of control of more of the optics in Washington, which means that the republicans will control what gets discussed and what issues they deal with. Remember the Democrats invoked the "Nuclear option" and changed the long standing senate rules so the republicans will be able to get bills on the presidents desk, any bill they choose, and strong arm him into making a very public veto or striking concessions. He will either play ball and alienate the Democratic base, or mess things up so badly signing that veto line over and over that the middle will abandon droves. Either way, the next two years won't go well for the democrats. My guess is he will just play golf for the next three years, which will be really bad for his party and alienate the majority the 20 somethings that voted for him. But all this is if the republicans take the senate which is not a foregone conclusion, yet..
You only hope for 2016, is that the Senate doesn't slip away, or that the republicans mess it up so badly nominating their candidate in 2 years that even I won't vote for them. Your only real chance is slipping away so you better hold onto that senate.
R house? Sure. R senate? Maybe. R president? Not before the currency collapse.
That soon? Wow.
A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.
What ever the democratic appointees do, they do. They got appointed, it's their call. If they want to be partisan, so be it.
The really sad thing is that the FCC commissioners used to be about sensible regulation and doing what's right for all, now it's who's paying who under the table and which campaign got money from which company.
Have we learned nothing from the Light Squared debacle? That whole thing was such a boondoggle technically, but no, the FCC had to string all that along. Stuff like that needs to stop and this is just the latest example. Come on folks, THINK about it and do the right thing for the PEOPLE you serve, not because it makes you or your party the most cash.
Do you get to vote in or out the Comcast ceo like you get to do with the city mayor ?
You can, if you own enough stock.
1. A copy of the "Mythical Man Month" by Fredrick Brooks and being told to read it.
2. A set of closing prices for every stock on the NY exchange for the next 20 years with the advice to become an investment banker..
If #2 isn't possible, then sitting down with somebody who could explain that you get what you negotiate, not what you deserve, so don't settle for what you get.
Yes, it's in the platform in Texas.. SO? Such verbiage plays well here.
That does not make it a campaign. It's like saying this is what I would vote for repeal if given the chance. There are ZERO republicans out trying to push legislation to abolish the federal minimum wage, then basing their campaign on such actions. Would we prefer to do away with the minimum wage? Yep, already said that. but you said there was a republican campaign to repeal it, there is not, not even in Texas where it would play well.
The only people campaigning on this are democrats... Only they have to trump up this idea that republicans are actively out to abolish the minimum wage when it's not happening.
Exaggerate much? Republicans don't want to get rid of the minimum wage.
You should try paying attention.
"I think it's outlived its usefulness," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. "It may have been of some value back in the Great Depression. I would vote to repeal the minimum wage."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/can-obama-unilaterally-raise-the-minimum-wage-20131205
You should use the whole quote too:
It's particularly unpalatable for Republicans, as the majority of them oppose to raising the minimum wage at all. "I think it's outlived its usefulness," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. "It may have been of some value back in the Great Depression. I would vote to repeal the minimum wage."
I'd vote to get rid of it it too, but I'm not running a campaign to repeal it. Joe Barton isn't campaigning to repeal it either. You are claiming republicans campaign to get rid of it. Big difference. There is no campaign by republicans to get rid of it.
Watch Republicans campaign again to get rid of the minimum wage.
Exaggerate much? Republicans don't wan to get rid of the minimum wage. Why would anybody campaign to get rid of the minimum wage? It would be stupid to just out and hand the democrats a loaded guy and say "Shoot me in the face!" trying to get rid of the minimum wage.
This republican knows of nobody trying to get rid of the minimum wage and I dare say you don't either.
BUT, that's not to say the democrats are not manufacturing such outrageous claims about republicans (i.e. lying about republicans intent) and turn the opposition of RAISING the minimum wage into something it's not.
Last 6 years? The economy has been stagnated long before that. We had declining job growth since roughly 2005 and wages haven't kept pace for nearly 2 decades.
Not arguing that. But the last 6 have been pretty bad and the only experience most of the readers of Shashdot generally have.
It's a race to the bottom. It's why we keep printing money here in the USA.
Are we in a race to the bottom or the top?
If manufacturing's biggest variable cost is labor, companies will flock to the place where their variable costs are the lowest.
So, the question is, have we started to reach wage parity now by virtue of wage reductions in the USA (race to the bottom) or the fact that wages in places like China have reached parity?
IMHO, it's both. The standard of living here in the USA has stagnated just like the last 6 years of the economy and the demands of labor outside the USA has driven costs up. But we are severely limited in this country because we face a huge increase in energy costs once the economy starts to actually do more than tread water. Manufacturing won't return, not yet.
Rushing any new technology pretty much makes it a given that it won't work as advertised. This is even more true when the buyer is the government and they are trying to calm fear.