As much as I despise the typical certifications and their teaching/testing industry, there are many government agencies that must rely on them. Quite simply, the US has twisted itself into such politically-correct retardedness that having a degree, a certification, or recorded experience is the only way that a worker can be evaluated. That doesn't just affect those on the actual government payroll, but also applies to the way contracts are bid out, proposals are written, and subcontractors are hired.
I don't like that subjectivity is mostly removed from the process, but otherwise abuses can easily occur. The self-taught guy may get weeded out early, but so will the HR manager's drinking buddy. I've worked with some incredible people that had no formal education and some schmucks that carry a heavy resume, but for the most part, the people that have formal qualifications are better trained and better suited for the positions.
After many years of adolescent poverty, I now have the disposable income that allows me to watch as many movies as I want, even at their current wallet-gouging prices. Still, I fall into the category of people who prefer DVD to theaters, but I go once in a while, if only to reinforce the opinion that I'd rather be at home.
I can handle the previews and movie trivia.
I can handle the guy who coughs uncontrollably during quiet scenes.
I can handle the mild whispering from the old woman who can't hear the dialogue over the coughing.
I can handle the teenage girl whose phone is constantly beeping from her text message conversation about the old woman.
I can handle the flying Skittles from the guy annoyed by the beeping.
But...
What the fuck gave Loews the idea that, after paying the exhorbitant prices, wading through sticky floors, sitting through commercials, and recognizing all of the surrounding nimrods that are conspiring to ruin my experience, this was a good idea...
The movie theater has the nerve, the incredible audacity, to ask if I want to donate to a charity and the ushers walk up the aisles shaking their tin can, swinging it out over your seat, as if to say, "Hey, you cheap bastard. While you're eating your junk food and having a night out on the town, there's a sick kid in a hospital bed."
Maybe I'm just the dick and don't realize it, but after I just dumped $40+ for a couple tickets and some of the cheapest food there is to produce, how about you take a couple dollars off the obscene profit you made from me, donate that (you don't even have to tell me), and shove the tin can right up your ass.
This is not a DVD recorder capable of putting one terabyte of data on a single optical disc. This is a device which can record on a typical DVD disc and also hold one terabyte of data on multiple hard drives.
As I am typing this post from a desktop computer that satifies those exact technical specifications, I feel I must lay claim to the "world's first hard disk drive/DVD recorder that can store one terabyte of data."
Do you think they're providing those services out of the kindness of their heart or because they are somehow indebted to you? You chose to give up some of your privacy by using their free email, free instant messaging, and free web searching, you cheap bastard.
It's government contracting, so there is no second step. In fact, if Lockheed does it right, the first step really isn't required, either.
I kid, but I say this as one of those "slimy government contractors" working for a competitor in another sector. In reality, I don't think they're installing the cameras under the guise of anti-terrorism action with some nefarious intention, nor do I think that Lockheed is invading a passenger's privacy (on a subway platform? what privacy?).
Is Lockheed taking advantage of the situation, meaning a plump contract that was created out of equal shares necessity and fear? Sure. Why wouldn't they?
It's tiny and built to be mobile. I'm willing to bet that it's almost no time before the mp3 add-on hardware is released. At that point, thousands of people already have the device and the upgrade would be a fraction of the cost against a new iPod. They would be stupid not to do it.
A restriction on federal funding *is* a restriction of research Your analogy of the driver's license would be reasonable if the federal funding was as easily obtainable as a driver's license.
A better analogy would be a homeless person asking for my spare change. If I disagree with the individual, for whatever reason, and decide I'll allocate my spare change to another guy on the street, or not at all, few people would actually accuse me of preventing that person from eating.
why people who do all the work (manual labour etc.) get 10 times less money then the people who point and go "Get it done by next week" (managers). In the end, many people will accept a position, no matter what size the actual workload, so long as it is handed to them and their responsibilities are fairly clear. Our boss is well-liked, but most of my peers would never dream of stepping up to take his job (and have said as much). It pays more, the actual, measurable demands are lower, but the responsibility is higher and not as well-defined.
Basically, most of the group prefers bitching and complaining to taking responsiblity for something.
Hardly. I have a great appreciation for many different scientific disciplines. I have no more interest in the space program than the other areas, but apparently, I have a greater respect for their contribution than most people (or maybe just a greater understanding of their significance).
average junior high school science fair
Last I heard, NASA was still looking for more bright people to push the program forward. Just out of curiosity, what's been your grand contribution to space exploration and science that they're missing?
I could list several lesser-known missions, but their significance (or existence) is apparently lost on anyone who doesn't get to see green cheese or aliens. No progress, my ass.
the highest priority for this mission was seeing whether or not anybody died and everything else was secondary to that.
No, I believe that's why the media (WSJ, included) covered this particular mission so closely and the general population was more interested in the mission and results than usual. Another loss so soon would be a media circus and would take NASA PR decades to recover from.
We've lost two shuttles... out of 114 missions. Both were horrible tragedies and we would never accept a 1.75% catastrophic failure rate in a consumer vehicle, but we're talking about space flight. The flights had become so routine to most people that the media coverage was non-existent between the disasters. On top of that, the astronauts are all extremely bright people and I doubt they would accept a mission if anyone involved believed the main purpose was just to see if they could make it back.
there wasn't even any real science involved
We used to do the scientific work on the shuttle because there was no other location. Now, we do the scientific work on the space station and the shuttle supports it. I would still rate that as being "involved" in the science, even if the connection isn't immediately apparent.
we get a mission whose highlights were 'a) it came back; and b) an astronaut pulled bits of cloth out from between tiles.'
From NASA:
Several elements will be carried in Discovery's payload bay for delivery to the Station. These include the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module Raffaello, containing racks of supplies, food and water, and the Human Research Facility-2 rack. Also, the External Stowage Platform and a replacement Control Moment Gyroscope will be carried in Discovery's payload bay.
Excuse me for doubting the infinite wisdom of a whiny journalist, but I think I just saw a spaceship take food, water, supplies, and new equipment to a fucking space station. I apologize for not taking that accomplishment for granted. I don't know if I will ever get used to that being a simple, common occurence.
As for the astronaut who made repairs to the spaceship in fucking space, one has to wonder if the same whiny journalist changes the oil in his own car... on Earth.
I never claimed it was a free market, open market, or even a reasonably-fair market. This was a discussion about contracts and whether someone should be able to renege when they no longer feel the terms are satisfactory.
As it stands, nobody is required to play football professionally or sign a contract to play in the NFL monopoly (I'm not disagreeing that there is one). Again, the players sign because the desire to play there outweighs any lousy conditions of the contracts.
I understand where you're coming from, but nobody's forced to take a contract. They sign, even under less-than-ideal terms, because their desire to play in the NFL outweighs their concerns about low salary, long terms, or restrictive clauses.
Primary person gets injuried and the player finds himself in the starting position and becomes an excellent athlete and huge fan favorite.
I'm quite certain that the team would expect them to perform to the best of their ability and as often as possible. I would be quite surprised if that wasn't in every contract. Gaining fans doesn't release you from that commitment. Besides, most athletic contracts include bonuses for increased performance.
Why do you think said player should have to settle for the salaray he accepted as a nobody?
The team took a risk on the player by giving them a long-term contract when he was a nobody. He could have offered to sign for a shorter term at his own risk of not performing adequately enough to be signed at a higher rate (or signed at all) down the road.
I work directly under the head of technology here, and if he decides to move on and I get promoted to that position, I damn well better get a higher salary as well.
Apples and oranges. Most direct employment is at-will, so I'm quite certain you didn't sign a contract to provide your services for a set period of time and the company didn't gurantee employment for a set period, either. However, if a contract specified that you could be required to perform the duties of the manager during a set term, without increased compensation, and you signed it, how do you get off challenging that commitment later?
As has been mentioned, without seeing the contracts we do not know who is in the wrong, if anyone.
While I absolutely agree with this statement, the summary of the article stated that they were defying their contracts, which is the basis for my original post. If they were simply taking advantage of other channels, even at risk of incurring fees described in the contract, it's well within their rights. In that case, though, the term defy wouldn't be applicable, the story wouldn't be very newsworthy, and I probably would have skipped it for the next article.
Pardon me, I thought this was a forum for discussion. I hardly view my post as simple whining and we could easily get into a recursive "why are you whining about my whining?" argument. If you decide to proceed with that logic, please understand that I will choose not to.
Hence your snippy ill informed and ill concived coments about "money-grubbing whores and glorifying thieves" as well as the rest of you're post are way off the mark and have absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with the article in question.
Again, your opinion.
how is it fair to hold musicicians to a contract...
This is the crux of the argument right here and is exactly the mindset that brought on the "ill concived" comment about glorifying thieves. No matter what you put after that fragment, there is nothing that will make me feel sympathy for the artist. The terms of the contract were ok before they got paid, but now they've changed their mind. You wouldn't accept that from a guy building your house or fixing your car. How is a musician any different?
Slashdot Mirror
Besides a slew of other games that fit parts of the description, Sanitarum seems to hit most of the points, exactly. It was released in 1998.
As much as I despise the typical certifications and their teaching/testing industry, there are many government agencies that must rely on them. Quite simply, the US has twisted itself into such politically-correct retardedness that having a degree, a certification, or recorded experience is the only way that a worker can be evaluated. That doesn't just affect those on the actual government payroll, but also applies to the way contracts are bid out, proposals are written, and subcontractors are hired.
I don't like that subjectivity is mostly removed from the process, but otherwise abuses can easily occur. The self-taught guy may get weeded out early, but so will the HR manager's drinking buddy. I've worked with some incredible people that had no formal education and some schmucks that carry a heavy resume, but for the most part, the people that have formal qualifications are better trained and better suited for the positions.
After many years of adolescent poverty, I now have the disposable income that allows me to watch as many movies as I want, even at their current wallet-gouging prices. Still, I fall into the category of people who prefer DVD to theaters, but I go once in a while, if only to reinforce the opinion that I'd rather be at home.
I can handle the previews and movie trivia.
I can handle the guy who coughs uncontrollably during quiet scenes.
I can handle the mild whispering from the old woman who can't hear the dialogue over the coughing.
I can handle the teenage girl whose phone is constantly beeping from her text message conversation about the old woman.
I can handle the flying Skittles from the guy annoyed by the beeping.
But...
What the fuck gave Loews the idea that, after paying the exhorbitant prices, wading through sticky floors, sitting through commercials, and recognizing all of the surrounding nimrods that are conspiring to ruin my experience, this was a good idea...
The movie theater has the nerve, the incredible audacity, to ask if I want to donate to a charity and the ushers walk up the aisles shaking their tin can, swinging it out over your seat, as if to say, "Hey, you cheap bastard. While you're eating your junk food and having a night out on the town, there's a sick kid in a hospital bed."
Maybe I'm just the dick and don't realize it, but after I just dumped $40+ for a couple tickets and some of the cheapest food there is to produce, how about you take a couple dollars off the obscene profit you made from me, donate that (you don't even have to tell me), and shove the tin can right up your ass.
This is not a DVD recorder capable of putting one terabyte of data on a single optical disc. This is a device which can record on a typical DVD disc and also hold one terabyte of data on multiple hard drives.
As I am typing this post from a desktop computer that satifies those exact technical specifications, I feel I must lay claim to the "world's first hard disk drive/DVD recorder that can store one terabyte of data."
I don't care if his code works or not. He got every person to look at the goatse picture, whether they realized it or not.
In fact, I kinda hope the whole site was an elaborate practical joke just for that purpose.
whatever happened to privacy
Do you think they're providing those services out of the kindness of their heart or because they are somehow indebted to you? You chose to give up some of your privacy by using their free email, free instant messaging, and free web searching, you cheap bastard.
You want privacy? Buy a stamp and send a letter.
1. Cameras in subways
2.
3. Profit!
It's government contracting, so there is no second step. In fact, if Lockheed does it right, the first step really isn't required, either.
I kid, but I say this as one of those "slimy government contractors" working for a competitor in another sector. In reality, I don't think they're installing the cameras under the guise of anti-terrorism action with some nefarious intention, nor do I think that Lockheed is invading a passenger's privacy (on a subway platform? what privacy?).
Is Lockheed taking advantage of the situation, meaning a plump contract that was created out of equal shares necessity and fear? Sure. Why wouldn't they?
Perhaps, it was simply a poor arrangement of words on my part. "They" was meant to refer to Microsoft, not the Xbox owners.
It's that sort of capitalist mentality that gets money just flowing into the shareholders pockets. What in God's name were they thinking?!!
And a 2.5" drive? Why the hell would they go and do that?
Take a look at a picture of the drive.
It's tiny and built to be mobile. I'm willing to bet that it's almost no time before the mp3 add-on hardware is released. At that point, thousands of people already have the device and the upgrade would be a fraction of the cost against a new iPod. They would be stupid not to do it.
A restriction on federal funding *is* a restriction of research
Your analogy of the driver's license would be reasonable if the federal funding was as easily obtainable as a driver's license.
A better analogy would be a homeless person asking for my spare change. If I disagree with the individual, for whatever reason, and decide I'll allocate my spare change to another guy on the street, or not at all, few people would actually accuse me of preventing that person from eating.
why people who do all the work (manual labour etc.) get 10 times less money then the people who point and go "Get it done by next week" (managers).
In the end, many people will accept a position, no matter what size the actual workload, so long as it is handed to them and their responsibilities are fairly clear. Our boss is well-liked, but most of my peers would never dream of stepping up to take his job (and have said as much). It pays more, the actual, measurable demands are lower, but the responsibility is higher and not as well-defined.
Basically, most of the group prefers bitching and complaining to taking responsiblity for something.
Your ignorance no longer amuses me. Have a nice day.
That would actually be three words
Figure that out all by yourself?
given the fact that you're a Shuttlehead
Hardly. I have a great appreciation for many different scientific disciplines. I have no more interest in the space program than the other areas, but apparently, I have a greater respect for their contribution than most people (or maybe just a greater understanding of their significance).
average junior high school science fair
Last I heard, NASA was still looking for more bright people to push the program forward. Just out of curiosity, what's been your grand contribution to space exploration and science that they're missing?
If you mean Raffaello Sanzio, the Italian Renaissance painter, then, no, Italian Space Agency did not get it wrong when they named the module.
If you mean Rafael, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, then NASA probably screwed up.
Hubble fucking Telescope
I could list several lesser-known missions, but their significance (or existence) is apparently lost on anyone who doesn't get to see green cheese or aliens. No progress, my ass.
the highest priority for this mission was seeing whether or not anybody died and everything else was secondary to that.
No, I believe that's why the media (WSJ, included) covered this particular mission so closely and the general population was more interested in the mission and results than usual. Another loss so soon would be a media circus and would take NASA PR decades to recover from.
We've lost two shuttles... out of 114 missions. Both were horrible tragedies and we would never accept a 1.75% catastrophic failure rate in a consumer vehicle, but we're talking about space flight. The flights had become so routine to most people that the media coverage was non-existent between the disasters. On top of that, the astronauts are all extremely bright people and I doubt they would accept a mission if anyone involved believed the main purpose was just to see if they could make it back.
there wasn't even any real science involved
We used to do the scientific work on the shuttle because there was no other location. Now, we do the scientific work on the space station and the shuttle supports it. I would still rate that as being "involved" in the science, even if the connection isn't immediately apparent.
From the WSJ columnist:
we get a mission whose highlights were 'a) it came back; and b) an astronaut pulled bits of cloth out from between tiles.'
From NASA:
Several elements will be carried in Discovery's payload bay for delivery to the Station. These include the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module Raffaello, containing racks of supplies, food and water, and the Human Research Facility-2 rack. Also, the External Stowage Platform and a replacement Control Moment Gyroscope will be carried in Discovery's payload bay.
Excuse me for doubting the infinite wisdom of a whiny journalist, but I think I just saw a spaceship take food, water, supplies, and new equipment to a fucking space station. I apologize for not taking that accomplishment for granted. I don't know if I will ever get used to that being a simple, common occurence.
As for the astronaut who made repairs to the spaceship in fucking space, one has to wonder if the same whiny journalist changes the oil in his own car... on Earth.
well clearly
This is uncontravertable proof that partents know how to parent than senetors.
No, nothing was clear there.
So, yeah, I must be really happy.
I never claimed it was a free market, open market, or even a reasonably-fair market. This was a discussion about contracts and whether someone should be able to renege when they no longer feel the terms are satisfactory.
As it stands, nobody is required to play football professionally or sign a contract to play in the NFL monopoly (I'm not disagreeing that there is one). Again, the players sign because the desire to play there outweighs any lousy conditions of the contracts.
You may have to take a 4+ year contract.
I understand where you're coming from, but nobody's forced to take a contract. They sign, even under less-than-ideal terms, because their desire to play in the NFL outweighs their concerns about low salary, long terms, or restrictive clauses.
Primary person gets injuried and the player finds himself in the starting position and becomes an excellent athlete and huge fan favorite.
I'm quite certain that the team would expect them to perform to the best of their ability and as often as possible. I would be quite surprised if that wasn't in every contract. Gaining fans doesn't release you from that commitment. Besides, most athletic contracts include bonuses for increased performance.
Why do you think said player should have to settle for the salaray he accepted as a nobody?
The team took a risk on the player by giving them a long-term contract when he was a nobody. He could have offered to sign for a shorter term at his own risk of not performing adequately enough to be signed at a higher rate (or signed at all) down the road.
I work directly under the head of technology here, and if he decides to move on and I get promoted to that position, I damn well better get a higher salary as well.
Apples and oranges. Most direct employment is at-will, so I'm quite certain you didn't sign a contract to provide your services for a set period of time and the company didn't gurantee employment for a set period, either. However, if a contract specified that you could be required to perform the duties of the manager during a set term, without increased compensation, and you signed it, how do you get off challenging that commitment later?
As has been mentioned, without seeing the contracts we do not know who is in the wrong, if anyone.
While I absolutely agree with this statement, the summary of the article stated that they were defying their contracts, which is the basis for my original post. If they were simply taking advantage of other channels, even at risk of incurring fees described in the contract, it's well within their rights. In that case, though, the term defy wouldn't be applicable, the story wouldn't be very newsworthy, and I probably would have skipped it for the next article.
And why are you whining about this?
Pardon me, I thought this was a forum for discussion. I hardly view my post as simple whining and we could easily get into a recursive "why are you whining about my whining?" argument. If you decide to proceed with that logic, please understand that I will choose not to.
Hence your snippy ill informed and ill concived coments about "money-grubbing whores and glorifying thieves" as well as the rest of you're post are way off the mark and have absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with the article in question.
Again, your opinion.
how is it fair to hold musicicians to a contract...
This is the crux of the argument right here and is exactly the mindset that brought on the "ill concived" comment about glorifying thieves. No matter what you put after that fragment, there is nothing that will make me feel sympathy for the artist. The terms of the contract were ok before they got paid, but now they've changed their mind. You wouldn't accept that from a guy building your house or fixing your car. How is a musician any different?