I never finished school and I get hired for "engineering" positions that say BS Degree required, MS Degree recommended. It's harder to get hired, but not impossible.
It helps to be something besides "just another guy" but with less formal education. Try to be the right guy, or the reliable guy, or the smart guy, or the hard working guy, or the specialty guy. Be the guy they'll be glad they hired.
Johnny is 18 years old. Where did he learn about the real long-term consequences of debt?
Debt is dangerous. Student loan debt is especially dangerous because there's no second chance by declaring bankruptcy. Did anyone warn Johnny?
You give a grenade to someone. He doesn't know what it is. You tell him it's useful. He examines it and tries it out. It blows up and he's injured. Who is at fault?
Because its easy to make bad decisions regarding debt, especially when you're 18 years old and don't know the long term consequences. There's a reason we have bankruptcy now instead of debtor's prison they had a couple hundred years ago. But student loans are exempt from bankruptcy, so even if you can afford to pay them, they just eat away part of your life every month, sometimes for decades.
Also, student loans are for college. Kids are "supposed" to go to college. It's not like they were borrowing to buy a nice car or something fun.
And there's the amounts of money involved: $100K to $200K or more.
Also, let's ban televised sporting events. If you can't get to the stadium, too bad. We can't have these phony reproductions. If you can't smell it, it's not real.
And they're even thinking about doing it with music now. Writing the sounds to a wax disc and carrying it far from the room the musicians originally played in. It's a travesty.
I hope no one finds a recording mechanism for ideas. We can't have those spreading around. What will the town criers do then?
Our current system has "issues" too. We should shut it down and stop doing anything until we can find a system with no "issues". If everyone can't be perfectly happy, what's the point of doing anything? Why even try?
It's a solution for the people who want to work there and feed their families, and maybe earn some money to send their kids to college. But screw them, right? Let them eat cake.
It''s a solution to the single mother who wants to save a few dollars a year on gasoline. Maybe she can buy her kid the toy he wants for Christmas with the few extra dollars. But screw them, right?
"Lovely piece of nature" is a complete lie. The place is a cold, barren, dark, mosquito-infested wasteland. It's one of the least hospitable areas on earth.
Why are you spreading falsehoods about it?
Also, the part they want to drill for oil in is ecologically insignificant.
The arguments against drilling there are all essentially "I hate oil" and "I don't care about the people who would benefit from drilling there. Screw them."
KICUCULA, Uganda — According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.
People here remember it quite differently.
“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”
Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.
. . .
But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.
Why don't these Democrat NY State Senators mind their own business?
It's possible to exercise freedom outside the perfectly defined bounds of the First Amendment, you know.
It's also possible to govern without trying to be everyone's Mom. Why should we tolerate governments trying to take away every tiny sliver of human freedom except the ones that are explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights? We all know these people would take away even more freedoms if they could get away with it.
Do you want the author of this piece arrested for "Cyberbullying"? Or the Slashdot editors? Just wondering.
It's "bait and switch" because someone found out about what they were "privately working on" and was disappointed it didn't fulfill his every wish. It's the age of entitlement. If someone doesn't get everything he wants, it can be anywhere from "bait and switch" to a hate crime depending on how entitled he is.
You know you WERE wronged - your details were stolen.
No. No one but the criminals knows what files were taken, or whether any copies were made, or whether anyone read them. They know that some files could have been read. Also, I disagree that someone knowing "details" about me is the same as being "wronged". What is the cash value of me keeping my "details" secret?
You are attempting to discover fault, and the only (real) way to to do that is through discovery of evidence.
Apparently you dont have the first clue about the legal system.
I know what discovery is. Apparently you are endorsing the idea that everyone should sue everyone else all the time. How else can I be sure someone hasn't wronged me?
Everyone can subpoena every piece of information that everyone else has. That will solve those data breaches by requiring that all information be disclosed to everyone all the time.
In a just legal system, you'd have to actually have a reason to sue. You'd have to claim some real, non-trivial injury, and you'd have to have some plausible arguments to back it up. And you'd have to pay a price if your claims were found to be incorrect.
I don't want the lawyers to "defend" my nickel and dime "rights". I'd rather Sony have the nickel than some lawyers. Sony provided me with a product that I willingly bought. I like it. Lawyers provided me nothing of value. Why should my nickels and dimes be transferred from producing something I value to lawyers, who produce nothing? It's certainly not justice.
Lawyers should go get honest work instead of shaking down companies. Produce something or provide a service that someone will willingly pay you for rather than scheming to have your pay "awarded" to you.
Good. Then they won't have to raise the price of their products.
Why do I want to pay $10 extra for a product to prevent the very unlikely possibility of losing $50? I wouldn't willingly pay $10 for insurance against such a loss.
The extra $10 shouldn't be built-in to the product's cost in order to provide a financial windfall for lawyers.
1. Sony was the victim of a crime. 2. Security is relative. It can always be increased. Criminals have shown they can circumvent almost any security measure. You've cited zero facts to back up your claim that Sony's was negligent. 3. I have never seen any credible indication anyone besides Sony was harmed by the security breach. When was the stolen info used against anyone besides Sony? If you weren't harmed by the loss of the information, then why should you be compensated for harm that did not occur? (People were hurt by the downtime though. When crooks blow up a bank, it's inconvenient for the folks who can't transact business there during repairs.)
I'm really going to miss that coupon for 50% off a Spongebob theme that we were going to get in that settlement. I earned that coupon because Sony could have warned me 10 minutes earlier about my credit card info possibly (but almost certainly not) being stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
I never finished school and I get hired for "engineering" positions that say BS Degree required, MS Degree recommended. It's harder to get hired, but not impossible.
It helps to be something besides "just another guy" but with less formal education. Try to be the right guy, or the reliable guy, or the smart guy, or the hard working guy, or the specialty guy. Be the guy they'll be glad they hired.
Johnny is 18 years old. Where did he learn about the real long-term consequences of debt?
Debt is dangerous. Student loan debt is especially dangerous because there's no second chance by declaring bankruptcy. Did anyone warn Johnny?
You give a grenade to someone. He doesn't know what it is. You tell him it's useful. He examines it and tries it out. It blows up and he's injured. Who is at fault?
Because its easy to make bad decisions regarding debt, especially when you're 18 years old and don't know the long term consequences. There's a reason we have bankruptcy now instead of debtor's prison they had a couple hundred years ago. But student loans are exempt from bankruptcy, so even if you can afford to pay them, they just eat away part of your life every month, sometimes for decades.
Also, student loans are for college. Kids are "supposed" to go to college. It's not like they were borrowing to buy a nice car or something fun.
And there's the amounts of money involved: $100K to $200K or more.
Also, let's ban televised sporting events. If you can't get to the stadium, too bad. We can't have these phony reproductions. If you can't smell it, it's not real.
And they're even thinking about doing it with music now. Writing the sounds to a wax disc and carrying it far from the room the musicians originally played in. It's a travesty.
I hope no one finds a recording mechanism for ideas. We can't have those spreading around. What will the town criers do then?
Everywhere else, issues start to crop up.
Oh no! "Issues"!
Our current system has "issues" too. We should shut it down and stop doing anything until we can find a system with no "issues". If everyone can't be perfectly happy, what's the point of doing anything? Why even try?
So you're saying a year or 3 or 5 years of having a job that pays well is useless. Let them eat cake.
It's a solution for the people who want to work there and feed their families, and maybe earn some money to send their kids to college. But screw them, right? Let them eat cake.
It''s a solution to the single mother who wants to save a few dollars a year on gasoline. Maybe she can buy her kid the toy he wants for Christmas with the few extra dollars. But screw them, right?
It's a solution to the problem that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline will cease to be able to transport oil because the volume of oil is too low. When that fails, thousands more people will lose their jobs -- good jobs with decent pay. But screw them, right?
"Lovely piece of nature" is a complete lie. The place is a cold, barren, dark, mosquito-infested wasteland. It's one of the least hospitable areas on earth.
Why are you spreading falsehoods about it?
Also, the part they want to drill for oil in is ecologically insignificant.
The arguments against drilling there are all essentially "I hate oil" and "I don't care about the people who would benefit from drilling there. Screw them."
Can we use this principle for government too?
NY Times:
If not war, at least oppression.
Why don't these Democrat NY State Senators mind their own business?
It's possible to exercise freedom outside the perfectly defined bounds of the First Amendment, you know.
It's also possible to govern without trying to be everyone's Mom. Why should we tolerate governments trying to take away every tiny sliver of human freedom except the ones that are explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights? We all know these people would take away even more freedoms if they could get away with it.
Do you want the author of this piece arrested for "Cyberbullying"? Or the Slashdot editors? Just wondering.
Yeah, I linked to the page containing that graph.
The trend in the last 4 years is unclear. Also for all the years prior to 1979.
This year doesn't seem too unusual or alarming:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
More info:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
It's "bait and switch" because someone found out about what they were "privately working on" and was disappointed it didn't fulfill his every wish. It's the age of entitlement. If someone doesn't get everything he wants, it can be anywhere from "bait and switch" to a hate crime depending on how entitled he is.
Yeah Anonymous Cowards. Camping out on Wall Street and trying to disrupt the daily lives of people there is a crime.
A peaceful protest is holding up a sign with a slogan. Blocking doors and streets and harassing people is a crime.
So Yahoo made it harder for some criminals to commit crimes. And Slashdot editors think we should be upset with Yahoo.
You know you WERE wronged - your details were stolen.
No. No one but the criminals knows what files were taken, or whether any copies were made, or whether anyone read them. They know that some files could have been read. Also, I disagree that someone knowing "details" about me is the same as being "wronged". What is the cash value of me keeping my "details" secret?
You are attempting to discover fault, and the only (real) way to to do that is through discovery of evidence.
Apparently you dont have the first clue about the legal system.
I know what discovery is. Apparently you are endorsing the idea that everyone should sue everyone else all the time. How else can I be sure someone hasn't wronged me?
Everyone can subpoena every piece of information that everyone else has. That will solve those data breaches by requiring that all information be disclosed to everyone all the time.
In a just legal system, you'd have to actually have a reason to sue. You'd have to claim some real, non-trivial injury, and you'd have to have some plausible arguments to back it up. And you'd have to pay a price if your claims were found to be incorrect.
I don't want the lawyers to "defend" my nickel and dime "rights". I'd rather Sony have the nickel than some lawyers. Sony provided me with a product that I willingly bought. I like it. Lawyers provided me nothing of value. Why should my nickels and dimes be transferred from producing something I value to lawyers, who produce nothing? It's certainly not justice.
Lawyers should go get honest work instead of shaking down companies. Produce something or provide a service that someone will willingly pay you for rather than scheming to have your pay "awarded" to you.
I wouldn't pay $5 or $3 either.
Good. Then they won't have to raise the price of their products.
Why do I want to pay $10 extra for a product to prevent the very unlikely possibility of losing $50? I wouldn't willingly pay $10 for insurance against such a loss.
The extra $10 shouldn't be built-in to the product's cost in order to provide a financial windfall for lawyers.
Does old web server software known to be vulnerable count as a sign of negligence?
That news story was debunked.
So...
- you don't know if you were wronged
- you don't know if you were harmed
- you don't know if anyone could reasonably have prevented it
but you want to sue anyway.
Three things about that:
1. Sony was the victim of a crime.
2. Security is relative. It can always be increased. Criminals have shown they can circumvent almost any security measure. You've cited zero facts to back up your claim that Sony's was negligent.
3. I have never seen any credible indication anyone besides Sony was harmed by the security breach. When was the stolen info used against anyone besides Sony? If you weren't harmed by the loss of the information, then why should you be compensated for harm that did not occur? (People were hurt by the downtime though. When crooks blow up a bank, it's inconvenient for the folks who can't transact business there during repairs.)
Okay, sooo... who's up for a mass individual filing of, oh, say, 20,000 lawsuits?
About 12 people.
I'm really going to miss that coupon for 50% off a Spongebob theme that we were going to get in that settlement. I earned that coupon because Sony could have warned me 10 minutes earlier about my credit card info possibly (but almost certainly not) being stolen.
Lawyers will get $3 million in fees, of course.