Do some research on the history of this most recent school shooting. You'll find that the popular, "military-esque" AR-15, which was bandied about as being the primary gun used, was never actually recovered. How is that even possible? The story was changed repeatedly and the news told a dozen versions of the events. If the shooter was dead on the scene, there is only really one logical explanation for the events which transpired.
It was a set up, in this case - coincidentally right around the time when the UN gun treaty came up.
On the contrary, if relaxation of gun control laws (ie, guns are more available to the general, non-felony/criminal population), there is numerous repeated instances of not only low murder rates being associated with high firearm liberty, but an increase in firearm liberty usually means a decrease in murder.
Once you remove suicide and criminal on criminal deaths (ie gang related), firearm deaths in the US are almost a statistical anomaly: you're more likely to be struck by lightning.
* You don't need insurance, but get it anyway. It's a cheap way to sleep soundly. There are a lot of money hungry bastards out there who will sue you for their own shortcomings surrounding project "incompleteness". * Don't be picky. It doesn't matter if you can't do everything really well, as long as you can do it. Bill accordingly. You can eat steak every night after you've got enough money to be discerning. * RELATIONSHIPS. Find and use people you know to help you, either as subcontractors or as actual partners. You can't do it all, no matter how good you are: there are only so many hours in a day. You will not grow without people to fill in for you when you're busy on a project. Throw jobs to people you know who need the jobs and the kickback will be beneficial. * Plan on at least two years of "struggling" until you are comfortably established. Plan on intensely hard months for at least 5 years. * I can't overstate mutual reliance enough. You really do need to find people who you can depend on (and vice versa) while starting out. * Expect 12 hour days for at least 6 months, and no vacations until you're big enough to support at least 3 employees of similar wage financially through the business.
This. Forget that it's moderated "Funny"; it's true.
My experience is that unless you've got a perfect resume, your best option to get in the door somewhere is through word of mouth - in the back door, so to speak. This has been true of every desirable job (and interview) I've had. The places which make it impossible to get a job this way (through overly staunch bureaucratic), requiring you to go through HR, are vertically integrated hellholes which encourage mediocrity and sameness. Even if you get the job, you won't like it (in all likelihood). (That said, if you're a stereotypical kinda IT networking guy, maybe you would; who knows - I wouldn't.)
Another option is to luck out with a small business in need of an IT guy. You may not be doing precisely what you want, but if you're cheap and can do what they want, it'll be a good opportunity for other things on the side and/or several years later.
Not everyone has the opportunity to be picky about employment. You find a job that pays the bills (or at least puts you in the ballpark of your preferred field and capabilities), you take it - even if you know it's a horrible fit. You need the work, it's not minimum wage, and they need an employee. Employers expect to be able to walk over their future employee indefinitely, so they want someone 'stable'. In this market, they can be a bit more picky, but they're (IMO) self-selecting for mediocrity in the process. (Try it: tell the employers this at the interview; if they want mediocrity, you're out the door. If they want excellence, you've got a good chance of being in the running if your resume and the interview reflect it.)
I'm sorry, but for people under (say) 35, this shouldn't be a bad mark against someone - particularly if they're demonstrating increasing levels of capability and responsibility. It's all the more true in IT, I think. So what if they cut out around a year for greener pastures? You just got a year of a capable person's career, and they probably accomplished twice what your average person could do in the same period of time.
Even if the 'flake' is a person who just gets easily bored after accomplishing things, it's going to cost you twice as much (or you'll have to hire multiple people) to replace them. I've seen people get paid almost twice as much to fill such shoes - and then not accomplish half as much in the same period of time.
No, this is horrible advice. Academic IT work is a drag.
Just kidding. Academic IT work has been the best job I've had in my career so far. I'd go back in a heartbeat. Considering I was working in one of the best possible environments for an IT geek (highly exclusive math/science environment surrounded by brilliant, stimulating, interesting people who were much smarter than I - in a broader socially diverse culture), I doubt I'll ever get such an opportunity again.
If you can, do it. Just don't expect the work to be like corporate IT; it's more scientific in nature and more akin to how IT was done 15+ years ago. Still, if you want to do something cool, this is where you're going to get to do it.
On the contrary, they prohibit all native code written by non-Microsoft developers.
Without a complete rewrite (you know, a completely new and incompatible browser code base which would have to be completely and independently maintained), you won't get another browser on the OS. So while what you say is technically true, it's like saying that Hitler wasn't a bad person because he was a Christian.
I don't know that this is necessarily Evil. Has Google done this kind of thing to anyone else, big or small, or is it just Microsoft?
Microsoft pretty much defines this kind of behavior - embrace, extend, and exclude/extinguish. From where I'm sitting, someone finally has something Microsoft needs, or pretends they need, so Google is basically just giving them a taste of the same medicine they've been feeding the entire industry for 25 years now.
So, Microsoft - what's wrong with Bing Maps? Get over it and move on. There is no reason you need to be bitching about this. (IMO, Bing Maps is better in many ways, anyway.)
it adds to the "slacktivism" of the American people and undermines any actual progress towards any desired goal, regardless of your political leanings. THE SITE IS A JOKE. It means NOTHING.
On the contrary; if you believe the site is anything other than a resource to mine US citizen sentiment, independent of pollsters, and to collect personal information on said 'petitioners' to aggregate against other databases, you may want to look at how this government has been working for the past 5 or so years. The courts just said there's no problem with the government indiscriminately killing US citizens with drones, and that they can keep it a secret to boot. (This, after several high profile "explosions" on the news over the past several months which have been attributed to "gas explosions" or "ammunition accidents".) Reflect on the meaning of that for a second. That's a bit more severe than "the government does not care".
Likewise, I know it takes me about 15 minutes to walk a mile on an even grade without too many obstacles, or about 25-30 minutes on a "hike" (ie uphill, not requiring grabbing onto things or difficult footing, etc.)
A lot of things can be relearned, but where it becomes problematic is in everything which has been measured and entered into official record - such as land management. We have a lot of land here in the US, most of which is very well zoned, cordoned, etc. We manage our land well and are very particular about it to boot - we do have large areas of wilderness, and even that has been carefully marked, measured, etc.
There just isn't an incentive to change from using what we've got. Why would we? I'm pretty sure nobody is going to confuse an acreage of US land with a plot of land in central Europe...
Yes, except metric in manufacturing and other things where a standard conversational unit (internationally) actually makes sense is somewhat different than (say) miles on US Interstates, where every car is in Standard US units (miles), largely based on the pre-existing units (acres, miles, etc.) used to measure and subdivide land in the US.
Aside from the "because we said so" incentive, what is the rationale behind changing US roadways to Metric? People shouldn't have to defend the status quo; the advocates of change are the ones with the burden of proof. (It works this way in all systems of change - see the advocates for banning books and burning guns - they want to change the way the system works, they've got to present a convincing argument.)
(Also, re: the OP: standardizing on how to use different forms of English was done a long time ago; I don't see that stopping you from failing to do so.)
So that's what, 1/3 the petition rate for the "Let Texas/Alabama/Dakota/Wyoming leave the United States" petitions?
Get a life. This is as likely to happen as steampunk pacemakers. Something like this has absolutely no incentive in the US. The only people who want this are know-it-all urban univeralists who think what's good enough for Europe is good enough for everyone.
While I will fully admit that standardizing on one thing is good and proper, it must first be appropriate. It is not appropriate to need to use two systems of measurement indefinitely, particularly when there is absolutely no way to cease using one of them. This is precisely why using Metric units has never caught on, and why it is never likely to do so. You'd have to completely rezone the entire US, which might as well be mile after mile of acre, each owned by an independent and sovereign country willing to fight to the death (due to how hotly contested/defended land/water/etc. rights can be in the US). You've got too many things which depend on those measurements; it's not going to happen.
Ah, the Metric System - yet another pie in the sky, long-lived and idealistic, but ultimately unrecognizable Socialist dream.
A better example would be like the low flow toilets required in all publicly accessible buildings in San Francisco (including rentals).
Net result: water costs are up, and any savings in water are spent on bleach and sanitation for the now-clogged public sewers. Meanwhile, they're dumping huge amounts of bleach into the bay, and the city smells more like shit and piss than ever.
You realize that whenever a totalitarian governmental program which works in other countries is tried in the US that it tends to cause a huge mess, be overly complicated, and do the exact opposite of what's proposed, right?
(And you think government regulations on emissions and spills are lax now? Wait until the government (EPA) is responsible for watching the government (oil production/refining). They'll run the efforts like the military: costs will go up drastically, as will the environmental impact.
No, the easy way to deal with it is for vehicle registration and tag renewal to take an odometer reading. You'll pay a baseline for years you don't need to get smogged/inspected and pay (or receive) the difference on the other years (through additional cost and/or discount) based on your previous year's driving.
Make it a flat mileage rate (say, $0.04 a mile based on a 20mpg efficiency - twice what we pay now for gas) and you're going to be able to fairly easily figure out how many miles you're driving. (Nerf that number further by vehicle weight and you could fairly easily determine your annual highway repair budgets.)
Sorry, modern SUVs (you know, Suburbans or Expeditions - basically all that's left in that category) don't really get that much better economy - still around 18mpg in best case scenarios. That's what my full size '86 diesel Blazer gets on the highway.
As I said elsewhere, base the gas tax on current fuel costs (or the last time gas tax was changed, if you wish, on an index), based on median fuel efficiency of all road vehicles (let's say it's about 20mpg once you factor in OTR trucks, older vehicles, etc.)
Of course, what do you want to bet this results in the EPA further inflating actual fuel efficiency of newer vehicles, or 'readjusting' their formulas, to increase tax revenue?
The 2012 Suburban can do 21mpg on the highway, but that's optimal and only in situations where it's going to kick down to half as many cylinders; at all 8 cylinders firing, it doesn't really do much better than about 13-15mpg.
Believe it or not, all your space age crumple zones and other design decisions which increase surviveability of the passengers (but markedly decrease the vehicle's survival in a minor fender bender) markedly increase vehicle weight. Those big, heavy Suburbans from the 1980s? They're not only larger by quite a bit (overall dimensions as well as weight - 500-800lb larger, IIRC) but have similar ~13-15mpg highway mileage - and can still tow at 70mpg.
Gas taxes, which are quickly turning into the modern vice tax, do just what other vice taxes do: Tax the poor.
Hey, when you're taxing cigarettes until the cost of production of each pack doubles (due to decreased consumption - all while cancer rates fail to drop, interestingly) and taxing liquor is already as high as the common man will bear, you've got to find something else to tax that everyone uses (for the time being). A more appropriate miles-driven-per-year-based-on-median-vehicle-mpg tax would be much more favorable, in my mind.
UPS, FedEx, etc. all use diesel vehicles. Diesel, which is primarily used by OTR truckers, already pay a markedly higher amount of road tax due to the lower MPG of their trucks as well as the significantly higher number of miles run.
Any 'use' tax on roadways should, naturally, be based on something like the median MPG of vehicles on the road, which is sort of a different way of getting to the same place the "cents per gallon" tax approach: end goal is to tax vehicles based on how much they use roadways. So if this went national, they'd just eliminate the tax from a gallon of fuel and base it off median mileage - let's say it's about 20mpg, for the sake of argument (newer 40+mpg contrasting against heavy work trucks, OTR, and older vehicles). So everyone would get taxed (more or less) $0.43 per mile (at $3.60/gal), assuming a 20mpg fuel consumption - or about $0.022 per mile, with current fuel tax rates. You drive 10,000 miles a year, you pay $220 in taxes; 20,000, you pay $440, and so on.
It saves the state a lot of money having to try to basically guess how much they need to tax the fuel based on the fuel economy of vehicles and can instead base it on closer figures, like actual mileage put onto the roadways.
Slashdot Mirror
The guns those nuts were using?
Do some research on the history of this most recent school shooting. You'll find that the popular, "military-esque" AR-15, which was bandied about as being the primary gun used, was never actually recovered. How is that even possible? The story was changed repeatedly and the news told a dozen versions of the events. If the shooter was dead on the scene, there is only really one logical explanation for the events which transpired.
It was a set up, in this case - coincidentally right around the time when the UN gun treaty came up.
On the contrary, if relaxation of gun control laws (ie, guns are more available to the general, non-felony/criminal population), there is numerous repeated instances of not only low murder rates being associated with high firearm liberty, but an increase in firearm liberty usually means a decrease in murder.
Once you remove suicide and criminal on criminal deaths (ie gang related), firearm deaths in the US are almost a statistical anomaly: you're more likely to be struck by lightning.
On this:
* You don't need insurance, but get it anyway. It's a cheap way to sleep soundly. There are a lot of money hungry bastards out there who will sue you for their own shortcomings surrounding project "incompleteness".
* Don't be picky. It doesn't matter if you can't do everything really well, as long as you can do it. Bill accordingly. You can eat steak every night after you've got enough money to be discerning.
* RELATIONSHIPS. Find and use people you know to help you, either as subcontractors or as actual partners. You can't do it all, no matter how good you are: there are only so many hours in a day. You will not grow without people to fill in for you when you're busy on a project. Throw jobs to people you know who need the jobs and the kickback will be beneficial.
* Plan on at least two years of "struggling" until you are comfortably established. Plan on intensely hard months for at least 5 years.
* I can't overstate mutual reliance enough. You really do need to find people who you can depend on (and vice versa) while starting out.
* Expect 12 hour days for at least 6 months, and no vacations until you're big enough to support at least 3 employees of similar wage financially through the business.
Overly optimistic?
This. Forget that it's moderated "Funny"; it's true.
My experience is that unless you've got a perfect resume, your best option to get in the door somewhere is through word of mouth - in the back door, so to speak. This has been true of every desirable job (and interview) I've had. The places which make it impossible to get a job this way (through overly staunch bureaucratic), requiring you to go through HR, are vertically integrated hellholes which encourage mediocrity and sameness. Even if you get the job, you won't like it (in all likelihood). (That said, if you're a stereotypical kinda IT networking guy, maybe you would; who knows - I wouldn't.)
Another option is to luck out with a small business in need of an IT guy. You may not be doing precisely what you want, but if you're cheap and can do what they want, it'll be a good opportunity for other things on the side and/or several years later.
Not everyone has the opportunity to be picky about employment. You find a job that pays the bills (or at least puts you in the ballpark of your preferred field and capabilities), you take it - even if you know it's a horrible fit. You need the work, it's not minimum wage, and they need an employee. Employers expect to be able to walk over their future employee indefinitely, so they want someone 'stable'. In this market, they can be a bit more picky, but they're (IMO) self-selecting for mediocrity in the process. (Try it: tell the employers this at the interview; if they want mediocrity, you're out the door. If they want excellence, you've got a good chance of being in the running if your resume and the interview reflect it.)
I'm sorry, but for people under (say) 35, this shouldn't be a bad mark against someone - particularly if they're demonstrating increasing levels of capability and responsibility. It's all the more true in IT, I think. So what if they cut out around a year for greener pastures? You just got a year of a capable person's career, and they probably accomplished twice what your average person could do in the same period of time.
Even if the 'flake' is a person who just gets easily bored after accomplishing things, it's going to cost you twice as much (or you'll have to hire multiple people) to replace them. I've seen people get paid almost twice as much to fill such shoes - and then not accomplish half as much in the same period of time.
No, this is horrible advice. Academic IT work is a drag.
Just kidding. Academic IT work has been the best job I've had in my career so far. I'd go back in a heartbeat. Considering I was working in one of the best possible environments for an IT geek (highly exclusive math/science environment surrounded by brilliant, stimulating, interesting people who were much smarter than I - in a broader socially diverse culture), I doubt I'll ever get such an opportunity again.
If you can, do it. Just don't expect the work to be like corporate IT; it's more scientific in nature and more akin to how IT was done 15+ years ago. Still, if you want to do something cool, this is where you're going to get to do it.
If the market dominant search engine is also one of the best, switching to something that is sub-optimal isn't going to be a good choice for many.
I suppose they should've thought of that before buying a Windows device then, hmm?
You know, Microsoft, the company which has been doing this with every single product they've made, ever.
(Apple has become very good about mimicking Microsoft in this regard in recent years, I might add.)
On the contrary, they prohibit all native code written by non-Microsoft developers.
Without a complete rewrite (you know, a completely new and incompatible browser code base which would have to be completely and independently maintained), you won't get another browser on the OS. So while what you say is technically true, it's like saying that Hitler wasn't a bad person because he was a Christian.
I don't know that this is necessarily Evil. Has Google done this kind of thing to anyone else, big or small, or is it just Microsoft?
Microsoft pretty much defines this kind of behavior - embrace, extend, and exclude/extinguish. From where I'm sitting, someone finally has something Microsoft needs, or pretends they need, so Google is basically just giving them a taste of the same medicine they've been feeding the entire industry for 25 years now.
So, Microsoft - what's wrong with Bing Maps? Get over it and move on. There is no reason you need to be bitching about this. (IMO, Bing Maps is better in many ways, anyway.)
it adds to the "slacktivism" of the American people and undermines any actual progress towards any desired goal, regardless of your political leanings. THE SITE IS A JOKE. It means NOTHING.
On the contrary; if you believe the site is anything other than a resource to mine US citizen sentiment, independent of pollsters, and to collect personal information on said 'petitioners' to aggregate against other databases, you may want to look at how this government has been working for the past 5 or so years. The courts just said there's no problem with the government indiscriminately killing US citizens with drones, and that they can keep it a secret to boot. (This, after several high profile "explosions" on the news over the past several months which have been attributed to "gas explosions" or "ammunition accidents".) Reflect on the meaning of that for a second. That's a bit more severe than "the government does not care".
Likewise, I know it takes me about 15 minutes to walk a mile on an even grade without too many obstacles, or about 25-30 minutes on a "hike" (ie uphill, not requiring grabbing onto things or difficult footing, etc.)
A lot of things can be relearned, but where it becomes problematic is in everything which has been measured and entered into official record - such as land management. We have a lot of land here in the US, most of which is very well zoned, cordoned, etc. We manage our land well and are very particular about it to boot - we do have large areas of wilderness, and even that has been carefully marked, measured, etc.
There just isn't an incentive to change from using what we've got. Why would we? I'm pretty sure nobody is going to confuse an acreage of US land with a plot of land in central Europe...
Yes, except metric in manufacturing and other things where a standard conversational unit (internationally) actually makes sense is somewhat different than (say) miles on US Interstates, where every car is in Standard US units (miles), largely based on the pre-existing units (acres, miles, etc.) used to measure and subdivide land in the US.
Aside from the "because we said so" incentive, what is the rationale behind changing US roadways to Metric? People shouldn't have to defend the status quo; the advocates of change are the ones with the burden of proof. (It works this way in all systems of change - see the advocates for banning books and burning guns - they want to change the way the system works, they've got to present a convincing argument.)
(Also, re: the OP: standardizing on how to use different forms of English was done a long time ago; I don't see that stopping you from failing to do so.)
So that's what, 1/3 the petition rate for the "Let Texas/Alabama/Dakota/Wyoming leave the United States" petitions?
Get a life. This is as likely to happen as steampunk pacemakers. Something like this has absolutely no incentive in the US. The only people who want this are know-it-all urban univeralists who think what's good enough for Europe is good enough for everyone.
While I will fully admit that standardizing on one thing is good and proper, it must first be appropriate. It is not appropriate to need to use two systems of measurement indefinitely, particularly when there is absolutely no way to cease using one of them. This is precisely why using Metric units has never caught on, and why it is never likely to do so. You'd have to completely rezone the entire US, which might as well be mile after mile of acre, each owned by an independent and sovereign country willing to fight to the death (due to how hotly contested/defended land/water/etc. rights can be in the US). You've got too many things which depend on those measurements; it's not going to happen.
Ah, the Metric System - yet another pie in the sky, long-lived and idealistic, but ultimately unrecognizable Socialist dream.
Yeah, they do that in CA, too. :P
Calling an expiring 'tax cut' not raising taxes is like calling sleeping with your ex when your girlfriend is out of town not infidelity.
A better example would be like the low flow toilets required in all publicly accessible buildings in San Francisco (including rentals).
Net result: water costs are up, and any savings in water are spent on bleach and sanitation for the now-clogged public sewers. Meanwhile, they're dumping huge amounts of bleach into the bay, and the city smells more like shit and piss than ever.
You realize that whenever a totalitarian governmental program which works in other countries is tried in the US that it tends to cause a huge mess, be overly complicated, and do the exact opposite of what's proposed, right?
(And you think government regulations on emissions and spills are lax now? Wait until the government (EPA) is responsible for watching the government (oil production/refining). They'll run the efforts like the military: costs will go up drastically, as will the environmental impact.
No, the easy way to deal with it is for vehicle registration and tag renewal to take an odometer reading. You'll pay a baseline for years you don't need to get smogged/inspected and pay (or receive) the difference on the other years (through additional cost and/or discount) based on your previous year's driving.
Make it a flat mileage rate (say, $0.04 a mile based on a 20mpg efficiency - twice what we pay now for gas) and you're going to be able to fairly easily figure out how many miles you're driving. (Nerf that number further by vehicle weight and you could fairly easily determine your annual highway repair budgets.)
A manual economy sedan, at that.
Sorry, modern SUVs (you know, Suburbans or Expeditions - basically all that's left in that category) don't really get that much better economy - still around 18mpg in best case scenarios. That's what my full size '86 diesel Blazer gets on the highway.
As I said elsewhere, base the gas tax on current fuel costs (or the last time gas tax was changed, if you wish, on an index), based on median fuel efficiency of all road vehicles (let's say it's about 20mpg once you factor in OTR trucks, older vehicles, etc.)
Of course, what do you want to bet this results in the EPA further inflating actual fuel efficiency of newer vehicles, or 'readjusting' their formulas, to increase tax revenue?
The 2012 Suburban can do 21mpg on the highway, but that's optimal and only in situations where it's going to kick down to half as many cylinders; at all 8 cylinders firing, it doesn't really do much better than about 13-15mpg.
Believe it or not, all your space age crumple zones and other design decisions which increase surviveability of the passengers (but markedly decrease the vehicle's survival in a minor fender bender) markedly increase vehicle weight. Those big, heavy Suburbans from the 1980s? They're not only larger by quite a bit (overall dimensions as well as weight - 500-800lb larger, IIRC) but have similar ~13-15mpg highway mileage - and can still tow at 70mpg.
Gas taxes, which are quickly turning into the modern vice tax, do just what other vice taxes do: Tax the poor.
Hey, when you're taxing cigarettes until the cost of production of each pack doubles (due to decreased consumption - all while cancer rates fail to drop, interestingly) and taxing liquor is already as high as the common man will bear, you've got to find something else to tax that everyone uses (for the time being). A more appropriate miles-driven-per-year-based-on-median-vehicle-mpg tax would be much more favorable, in my mind.
You must live in California. I'm sorry.
UPS, FedEx, etc. all use diesel vehicles. Diesel, which is primarily used by OTR truckers, already pay a markedly higher amount of road tax due to the lower MPG of their trucks as well as the significantly higher number of miles run.
Any 'use' tax on roadways should, naturally, be based on something like the median MPG of vehicles on the road, which is sort of a different way of getting to the same place the "cents per gallon" tax approach: end goal is to tax vehicles based on how much they use roadways. So if this went national, they'd just eliminate the tax from a gallon of fuel and base it off median mileage - let's say it's about 20mpg, for the sake of argument (newer 40+mpg contrasting against heavy work trucks, OTR, and older vehicles). So everyone would get taxed (more or less) $0.43 per mile (at $3.60/gal), assuming a 20mpg fuel consumption - or about $0.022 per mile, with current fuel tax rates. You drive 10,000 miles a year, you pay $220 in taxes; 20,000, you pay $440, and so on.
It saves the state a lot of money having to try to basically guess how much they need to tax the fuel based on the fuel economy of vehicles and can instead base it on closer figures, like actual mileage put onto the roadways.