I've got some special insight into this argument since I've been on both sides of it.
I've been through all of the hell that you described above and gotten my BS in Mechanical Engineering from an accredited university. I've now worked as a Civil Engineer for several years, and have recently taken the PE exam. (I'll be retaking it soon. My score was one point too low).
Before I got my degree, I was working my way through college part-time as...an engineer. (Note what I'm doing with Capitalization here). Specifically, I was a stationary engineer and a member of the International Union of Operating engineers. I served a four year apprenticeship in order to be a journeyman stationary engineer. There can be a certain amount of "hell" associated with that process too (that most academics would underestimate).
The title is traditionally applied in two different (and probably more) senses. The first, Engineer, is given to a range of professions requiring a high degree of mathematical, scientific, and a well-rounded academic education, that is (supposed to be) typical of at least a four-year college degree. The second sense, engineer, is to refer to members of a range of vocational trades that branched out of heavy equipment operations, (especially steam-powered equipment) in the nineteenth century. Both of these traditional uses of the term have well-established precedent.
Today the academic Engineers would like to restrict the use of the term to distinguish themselves from the vocational engineers. But the latter naturally object to the loss of the respected title. My take on this is that vocational side underestimates the expectations that the most recent use of the term Engineer evokes. I would continue to have considerable respect for current members of my former trade, if they were to use the titles of "technician" and "operator" instead. But I suspect that many of my current colleagues, i.e. Engineers, don't adequately appreciate the difficulties encountered in acquiring a skilled trade and don't have much respect such titles or vocations.
In Firefox 3.0.5, I can only transfer money between banks at BofA's website by loading the transfer page in IE tabs, (which of course isn't available on a Linux box). Otherwise I get:
"We were unable to set up your Transfers Outside Bank of America service for the following reason(s): * SS2: Missing Information."
I've no idea what that means and haven't found a way to correct it on my end. If I need this service, I've got to access it from an MS Windows box.
I think children today are over-supervised. My childhood preceded the period of hyper-vigilance about pedophiles that is the norm today (and way before the interweb thingy, you youngsters go on about). We frequently engaged in activities around my neighborhood without any adult supervision at all, riding our bicycles, organizing impromptu softball games, etc. Most of us survived this. What has been lost to the next generation after me, is the sense that you are entitled to any privacy as a child. Many who grew up in the eighties and nineties would find that their parents felt perfectly justified in monitoring their every movement, eavesdropping on every conversation, and even reading their diaries. Some day I'll be supervised in a nursing home by that generation. They're probably going to put a camera in my room.
Ignoring the nuts would be nice, but these people vote. They vote against "wasting" tax payers' money on "$3 million overhead projectors". They vote to end "needless subsidies to study the genetics of fruit flys, the effects of global warming", etc.
Dear Lexus,
When I purchased this vehicle, I also took ownership of the audio receiving equipment in the vehicle. The next time I hear an advertisement from your company in my vehicle, I'm going to interpret that as an implicit acceptance of my offer to you, to broadcast your ads over MY equipment, at a low cost of $1000 per broadcast. It is a pleasure doing business with you. Sincerely, Lexus Owner.
Whether they're seniors, or some other group of somewhat inexperienced users, put together (or purchase, or download) a book or booklet with some basic information. PC's for Dummies or an Idiot's Guide used to be good for this. Tell them if they cannot master some of these basics, they have no business being anywhere near a computer. Otherwise you will put up with the following types of interactions:
I can't see the picture of my granddaughter that was emailed to me? What format is it in, jpeg? I don't know? What program were you trying to use to view the picture? I don't know? Before I just clicked on it and it appeared. But now it's gone Did you click on it in the email program, a web browser, a file browser? I don't know? What's a web browser? Like Internet Explorer, or Firefox? Oh, I don't know. How do I know which one I'm using? This is all too complicated. Can't you just fix it for me?
"...but back then you could DEFINATELY live the "Leave it to Beaver" life without having a union job."
Absolutely true. But the only reason that the Ward Cleavers, who didn't join unions, got decent paychecks was because the unions had raised expectations for everyone. Ward would only become a professional, if professionals made significantly better money than carpenters. And carpenters, both union and non-union, were doing well because of unions, thus Ward was able to command upper middle class living standards as a professional.
As you can see from my four-digit ID, I've been hanging out on Slashdot for a long time. Whenever the union issue comes up here, I notice that there are an awful lot of negative comments against unions, more than there are favoring them. Since I'm firmly on the pro-union side, it's incumbent on me to chime in.
First, regarding the Employee Free Choice Act, there is a lot of misinformation about this that is being unchallenged by the mainstream media. One myth is that this act will eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing. That is NOT true. The employees will still be able to request that a secret ballot election be held. It will eliminate the employer's right to demand a secret ballot for the purpose of delaying union certification, and in the interim, intimidate employees to reject the union.
Now regarding the attitude generally displayed here toward organized labor, anecdotes prove nothing. Tired old tales about your uncle's friend's co-worker who showed up to work drunk, and caused your uncle's friend to lose his thumb, but couldn't be fired because of his union, may convince lots of people that unions are a bad thing, but they are largely apocryphal. Even where they are true in isolated cases, it is an indicator of incompetent management, not a necessary impact of the union. If you are managing a unionized work-force, and you are too lazy to even read their contract (which would tell you how to dismiss such an employee), then you are the problem, not the union.
Fair analysis of data (e.g. http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/datazone_rtw_index) indicates that unions have a positive impact upon the distribution of wealth, and general level of prosperity. Moreover, as unions decline in influence nationally, living standards decline both in the unionized and non-unionized sectors. Median real wages among those of you who live in so-called "right to work" states are lower than for those who live in states that don't interfere in the membership requirement that is written into union contracts. Yes, I'm sure that you may have read some report from the Heritage Foundation, or Cato Institute that said otherwise. But if you believe those sources of information, you may as well watch Fox news. If you must rely so heavily on anecdotes, talk to older members of your family, and ask them about whether or not there was ever such a thing as a "stay-at-home" mom. Ask them how could anyone afford to live that way.
I was raised in the '60s and '70s. When I was a kid, my father went to work in a factory every weekday. My mother did not work outside the home. This was typical among most of the families that I knew. Forty man-hours a week, for a family of four (six in our case), performed by a man without a college education, (in fact my dad didn't even have a high school diploma), was sufficient to maintain middle class living standards in typical American families at that time. We had health insurance, owned our homes, had leisure time, vacations, and typically, a full time mother. When my dad's company laid off workers temporarily during a lull, my father's seniority was honored. He felt bad for dismissed coworkers, but he didn't cut back spending, or miss any house payments. My father retired with a pension that kept him from falling into abject poverty for the rest of his days. That pension was bargained for by his union. It was not provided by his employer out of the goodness of their hearts.
As for myself, as a young man, I joined a trade union, served an apprenticeship and became a journeyman. But recognizing the direction of the political viability of unions, I decided to go to college part time later in life, and become an engineer. I paid my own way, and graduated nine years ago without the debt of a college loan. That was one of the benefits of a union wage. Today, though, working as a college educated professional, I barely approach the living standards that my family had in my childhood.
The bias exhibited by the main stream news media isn't primarily toward liberal, conservative, or any particular political party. It is a bias toward their corporate sponsors. How much news is reported by MSNBC, CBS, FOX, etc., on the damage done by their largest corporate sponsors? Walmart, GM, GE, McDonald's, etc. The bias is not seen as much in the slant of what is covered, but by what is not covered.
Glad you wrote that. I thought I was the only one who had this experience. I'm 45. Until about 1969 we had a black and white television at my house. I distinctly remembered seeing color on it as well. Batman and Robin were popular when I was about 4 or 5. The show was in color, but until we got the color set I shouldn't have been seeing the colors. The only explanation I have ever been able to come up with is, as you said, a mental projection of color into what I was seeing. I knew Batman's suit was blue (perhaps because I had sometimes saw it at my grandmother's house on her color set), so I saw it that way.
Well, like Randy in South Park, most professional people didn't care about a glut of cheap labor as long as the victims were tradesmen and factory workers. It's not surprising that there is a downturn in all types of employment in the United States as the globalization of the economy continues.
Not just in IT, but in labor-management relations generally, when managers start talking about "disgruntled" employees my bias detector starts ringing. The term is usually used by managers and it always seems to me to imply that the employee(s)have no valid grievances. That is, the employee is unhappy because he has some sort of fundamental character flaw. The idea that the employee is being treated unfairly seems beyond the consideration of managers who speak in terms of his being "disgruntled". Whether through union representation, or some in-house mechanism, employees should have channels through which grievances can be addressed.
Actually, the candidates will not "keep politics out of science". Sarah Palin (Cheney in a skirt) is so owned by the oil industry, that she is unwilling to admit that global warming might be related to burning fossil fuels. So no, 1. they're not going to keep religion out of politics. And 2. they're not going to keep politics out of science. But hopefully in the spirit of Rock, Paper, Scissors...
Presuming you want a Democratic victory, the thing that would most effectively increase a nerds voting power is "not voting". The only reason that Republicans have won any elections in the last hundred years is because people whose socio-economic circumstances make them more likely to benefit from the Democratic Party's control of government, i.e. poor people, blue-collar workers, unemployed, union members, minorities, etc., have become too cynical about the political process to bother voting. If the majority of people voted in U.S. elections, Republicans would never win any of them. Now if you want to make an activity (like voting) more popular rather than less popular. Then it would be better if nerds are not seen doing it. Think of a popular dance move from an earlier era. Do you know why no one does that any more? Because the instant everyone saw nerds trying to do it, it just didn't seem very cool anymore. So just stay home on election day, unless you're a Republican nerd. In that case I urge you to vote and campaign vigorously for John McCain. Be sure and tell everyone how you think he's really nifty.
To those who keep harping on the "inappropriate" humor regarding war, lighten up already. Seeing the lighter side will make this a more enjoyable war for all of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Klingons visit an alternate Askewniverse?
That would be funny to see. Just be prepared to Dodge the flying chair.
I've got some special insight into this argument since I've been on both sides of it. ...an engineer. (Note what I'm doing with Capitalization here). Specifically, I was a stationary engineer and a member of the International Union of Operating engineers. I served a four year apprenticeship in order to be a journeyman stationary engineer. There can be a certain amount of "hell" associated with that process too (that most academics would underestimate).
I've been through all of the hell that you described above and gotten my BS in Mechanical Engineering from an accredited university. I've now worked as a Civil Engineer for several years, and have recently taken the PE exam. (I'll be retaking it soon. My score was one point too low).
Before I got my degree, I was working my way through college part-time as
The title is traditionally applied in two different (and probably more) senses. The first, Engineer, is given to a range of professions requiring a high degree of mathematical, scientific, and a well-rounded academic education, that is (supposed to be) typical of at least a four-year college degree. The second sense, engineer, is to refer to members of a range of vocational trades that branched out of heavy equipment operations, (especially steam-powered equipment) in the nineteenth century. Both of these traditional uses of the term have well-established precedent.
Today the academic Engineers would like to restrict the use of the term to distinguish themselves from the vocational engineers. But the latter naturally object to the loss of the respected title. My take on this is that vocational side underestimates the expectations that the most recent use of the term Engineer evokes. I would continue to have considerable respect for current members of my former trade, if they were to use the titles of "technician" and "operator" instead. But I suspect that many of my current colleagues, i.e. Engineers, don't adequately appreciate the difficulties encountered in acquiring a skilled trade and don't have much respect such titles or vocations.
In Firefox 3.0.5, I can only transfer money between banks at BofA's website by loading the transfer page in IE tabs, (which of course isn't available on a Linux box). Otherwise I get:
"We were unable to set up your Transfers Outside Bank of America service for the following reason(s): * SS2: Missing Information."
I've no idea what that means and haven't found a way to correct it on my end. If I need this service, I've got to access it from an MS Windows box.
John Stewart said something on the Daily Show about certain States in our country that should be required to where a helmet at all times.
I think children today are over-supervised. My childhood preceded the period of hyper-vigilance about pedophiles that is the norm today (and way before the interweb thingy, you youngsters go on about). We frequently engaged in activities around my neighborhood without any adult supervision at all, riding our bicycles, organizing impromptu softball games, etc. Most of us survived this. What has been lost to the next generation after me, is the sense that you are entitled to any privacy as a child. Many who grew up in the eighties and nineties would find that their parents felt perfectly justified in monitoring their every movement, eavesdropping on every conversation, and even reading their diaries. Some day I'll be supervised in a nursing home by that generation. They're probably going to put a camera in my room.
My experience:
People who learn on Linux do well with both Linux and Windows.
People who learn on Windows don't do well with either of them.
Ignoring the nuts would be nice, but these people vote. They vote against "wasting" tax payers' money on "$3 million overhead projectors". They vote to end "needless subsidies to study the genetics of fruit flys, the effects of global warming", etc.
Dear Lexus,
When I purchased this vehicle, I also took ownership of the audio receiving equipment in the vehicle. The next time I hear an advertisement from your company in my vehicle, I'm going to interpret that as an implicit acceptance of my offer to you, to broadcast your ads over MY equipment, at a low cost of $1000 per broadcast. It is a pleasure doing business with you.
Sincerely,
Lexus Owner.
Whether they're seniors, or some other group of somewhat inexperienced users, put together (or purchase, or download) a book or booklet with some basic information. PC's for Dummies or an Idiot's Guide used to be good for this. Tell them if they cannot master some of these basics, they have no business being anywhere near a computer.
Otherwise you will put up with the following types of interactions:
I can't see the picture of my granddaughter that was emailed to me?
What format is it in, jpeg?
I don't know?
What program were you trying to use to view the picture?
I don't know? Before I just clicked on it and it appeared. But now it's gone
Did you click on it in the email program, a web browser, a file browser?
I don't know? What's a web browser?
Like Internet Explorer, or Firefox?
Oh, I don't know. How do I know which one I'm using? This is all too complicated. Can't you just fix it for me?
No mod points today. But you made me laugh.
"...but back then you could DEFINATELY live the "Leave it to Beaver" life without having a union job."
Absolutely true. But the only reason that the Ward Cleavers, who didn't join unions, got decent paychecks was because the unions had raised expectations for everyone. Ward would only become a professional, if professionals made significantly better money than carpenters. And carpenters, both union and non-union, were doing well because of unions, thus Ward was able to command upper middle class living standards as a professional.
As you can see from my four-digit ID, I've been hanging out on Slashdot for a long time. Whenever the union issue comes up here, I notice that there are an awful lot of negative comments against unions, more than there are favoring them. Since I'm firmly on the pro-union side, it's incumbent on me to chime in.
First, regarding the Employee Free Choice Act, there is a lot of misinformation about this that is being unchallenged by the mainstream media. One myth is that this act will eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing. That is NOT true. The employees will still be able to request that a secret ballot election be held. It will eliminate the employer's right to demand a secret ballot for the purpose of delaying union certification, and in the interim, intimidate employees to reject the union.
Now regarding the attitude generally displayed here toward organized labor, anecdotes prove nothing. Tired old tales about your uncle's friend's co-worker who showed up to work drunk, and caused your uncle's friend to lose his thumb, but couldn't be fired because of his union, may convince lots of people that unions are a bad thing, but they are largely apocryphal. Even where they are true in isolated cases, it is an indicator of incompetent management, not a necessary impact of the union. If you are managing a unionized work-force, and you are too lazy to even read their contract (which would tell you how to dismiss such an employee), then you are the problem, not the union.
Fair analysis of data (e.g. http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/datazone_rtw_index) indicates that unions have a positive impact upon the distribution of wealth, and general level of prosperity. Moreover, as unions decline in influence nationally, living standards decline both in the unionized and non-unionized sectors. Median real wages among those of you who live in so-called "right to work" states are lower than for those who live in states that don't interfere in the membership requirement that is written into union contracts. Yes, I'm sure that you may have read some report from the Heritage Foundation, or Cato Institute that said otherwise. But if you believe those sources of information, you may as well watch Fox news. If you must rely so heavily on anecdotes, talk to older members of your family, and ask them about whether or not there was ever such a thing as a "stay-at-home" mom. Ask them how could anyone afford to live that way.
I was raised in the '60s and '70s. When I was a kid, my father went to work in a factory every weekday. My mother did not work outside the home. This was typical among most of the families that I knew. Forty man-hours a week, for a family of four (six in our case), performed by a man without a college education, (in fact my dad didn't even have a high school diploma), was sufficient to maintain middle class living standards in typical American families at that time. We had health insurance, owned our homes, had leisure time, vacations, and typically, a full time mother. When my dad's company laid off workers temporarily during a lull, my father's seniority was honored. He felt bad for dismissed coworkers, but he didn't cut back spending, or miss any house payments. My father retired with a pension that kept him from falling into abject poverty for the rest of his days. That pension was bargained for by his union. It was not provided by his employer out of the goodness of their hearts.
As for myself, as a young man, I joined a trade union, served an apprenticeship and became a journeyman. But recognizing the direction of the political viability of unions, I decided to go to college part time later in life, and become an engineer. I paid my own way, and graduated nine years ago without the debt of a college loan. That was one of the benefits of a union wage. Today, though, working as a college educated professional, I barely approach the living standards that my family had in my childhood.
Fire Bad! Aaaaaaagh!!
"Who would have known playing God could have such terrible consequences?"
Bender Bending Rodriguez
LOL, I've got no mod points to say "funny", but you made me spew coffee at my desk.
The bias exhibited by the main stream news media isn't primarily toward liberal, conservative, or any particular political party. It is a bias toward their corporate sponsors. How much news is reported by MSNBC, CBS, FOX, etc., on the damage done by their largest corporate sponsors? Walmart, GM, GE, McDonald's, etc. The bias is not seen as much in the slant of what is covered, but by what is not covered.
Before you get demoralized, have you seen Mrs. Kucinich?
Glad you wrote that. I thought I was the only one who had this experience. I'm 45. Until about 1969 we had a black and white television at my house. I distinctly remembered seeing color on it as well. Batman and Robin were popular when I was about 4 or 5. The show was in color, but until we got the color set I shouldn't have been seeing the colors. The only explanation I have ever been able to come up with is, as you said, a mental projection of color into what I was seeing. I knew Batman's suit was blue (perhaps because I had sometimes saw it at my grandmother's house on her color set), so I saw it that way.
Well, like Randy in South Park, most professional people didn't care about a glut of cheap labor as long as the victims were tradesmen and factory workers. It's not surprising that there is a downturn in all types of employment in the United States as the globalization of the economy continues.
Not just in IT, but in labor-management relations generally, when managers start talking about "disgruntled" employees my bias detector starts ringing. The term is usually used by managers and it always seems to me to imply that the employee(s)have no valid grievances. That is, the employee is unhappy because he has some sort of fundamental character flaw. The idea that the employee is being treated unfairly seems beyond the consideration of managers who speak in terms of his being "disgruntled". Whether through union representation, or some in-house mechanism, employees should have channels through which grievances can be addressed.
Not only those things, but it is also now well established that it was Saddam Hussein who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
Actually, the candidates will not "keep politics out of science". Sarah Palin (Cheney in a skirt) is so owned by the oil industry, that she is unwilling to admit that global warming might be related to burning fossil fuels.
So no, 1. they're not going to keep religion out of politics.
And 2. they're not going to keep politics out of science.
But hopefully in the spirit of Rock, Paper, Scissors...
Presuming you want a Democratic victory, the thing that would most effectively increase a nerds voting power is "not voting".
The only reason that Republicans have won any elections in the last hundred years is because people whose socio-economic circumstances make them more likely to benefit from the Democratic Party's control of government, i.e. poor people, blue-collar workers, unemployed, union members, minorities, etc., have become too cynical about the political process to bother voting. If the majority of people voted in U.S. elections, Republicans would never win any of them.
Now if you want to make an activity (like voting) more popular rather than less popular. Then it would be better if nerds are not seen doing it. Think of a popular dance move from an earlier era. Do you know why no one does that any more? Because the instant everyone saw nerds trying to do it, it just didn't seem very cool anymore.
So just stay home on election day, unless you're a Republican nerd. In that case I urge you to vote and campaign vigorously for John McCain. Be sure and tell everyone how you think he's really nifty.
To those who keep harping on the "inappropriate" humor regarding war, lighten up already. Seeing the lighter side will make this a more enjoyable war for all of us.