Definately Keanu Reeves wearing some cool sunglasses. Definately not Tom Hanks crying and being sentimental like a big girl.
Such a move may greatly increase the proportion of talent-to-actors in Southern California. Film students everywhere rejoice.
Can we send Haley Joel Osment up there too?
from the "michael-writes-like-a-core-dump" dept.
on
E3 Wrapup
·
· Score: 2
And we had another submission, but the link seems to be broken, so I guess that's about it.
Oh, as opposed to the link being broken 3 minutes after the story is posted because of the/. effect. Watch out nerds - this is slashdotting territory!
It's like the Darwin Awards for webservers.
I had some other wisecrack to say, but it's been a long weekend and my skull is broken, so that's about it.
$400/month rent is hard to find in that area of NJ, though. I know, I live about a mile from the bridge in a modest (not poor but not rich) middle class neighborhood, and my apartment is $600 a month... and it's considered a terrific bargain by everyone who looks at it. I've done some apartment searches with other people, and the prices are not very low. In the end, I believe you have a good deal, but for most people it's still pretty pricey to live that close to NYC.
Plus... I wish I lived in the city. I'd pay more to do that. I don't feel sorry for anyone that does that and can't afford furniture after the fact, but keep in mind that some people are happier in the city rather than in suburbia. (For some people, it's the opposite, which they get to live happy and cheap)
(Arrogant Slashdot User - just to get it out of the way)
Then why the fuck do you live in New York City if it's so expensive? Move to the boondocks, idiot! Save money by getting an apartment for $300 a month in Eastern PA!
(Realistic human being)
No, that's not rational. They need IT workers in NYC just as much as (if not more than) they need them in other locations. Companies should pay their workers enough to keep up with the local cost of living relative with their skills. A programmer in New York should not be paid as low as a programmer in Tulsa, OK - that is unfair and insulting to those who put up with all the bullshit that goes with living and working in the big city.
By the way, it's cheaper to have an apartment in Manhattan than it is to live in and commute from anywhere more than 10 miles away. People who live in the city they work in save fossil fuels, ease congestion on the roads, reduce accidents, reduce stress and the ill mental effects that are spawned from excessive stress, save tax dollars, and keep insurance rates down. It may be more noble to pay the apartment cost up front than to pay - and make society pay - in indirect but very significant ways.
It was the college grads that got really fucked in the downturn. Not just in Comp Sci, but in all fields. Companies were able to shop around for good employees who had experience, were laid off from other jobs, and who would take a big pay cut. A college student can't really compete in a situation like that... all the benefits of being young and looking for just decent pay go right out the window when people with experience will take decent pay.
I work for a company as a shipping manager, being right out of college. I'm being paid very low for my credentials - $28,000 a year. In New York City, no less. My salary in this area is pretty much shit - people without college degrees are paid nearly as much. Meanwhile, I have a BS in CS with a minor in MIS. In the good economy, I was supposed to start with 60% higher pay.
FYI, none of the IT staff here are below 35 years old. Some are balding. They are very good, talented people, and they are paid well. I'm not jealous at all, but this reality contradicts with your statements.
I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me (I'm very happy and saving money), and I'm certainly not flaming you, but for all the arrogant types (who are out in full force today) - many many people were hurt by this economic downturn. Please don't relate the employed and unemployed as genius and stupid... in most cases it's more like fortunate and unlucky.
As someone who has to commute to work in a very densely populated area of New Jersey... I can fully agree with this.
Yes, we are assinine drivers. Get over it. They are worse in New York, and even much worse anywhere else where driver's licenses are as easy to get as filling out a form. For all the complaints you hear about Jersey drivers, we have some very strict requirements to get a legal drivers license here. (to fabricate one, however, is quite easy... even the real ones look fake) Basically, the only thing they do not test you for is highway driving... and some would argue that they should be doing that too. If you've been driving a few years in New Jersey without any serious accidents or a lot of "near-misses"... you might be an asshole, but consider yourself a skilled driver.
Which brings us to light changing cycles.
In this state, there is an actual danger of someone forcing you to the side of the road and beating you with a heavy object if you piss them off on the road. You don't have to drive in fear, but just don't do anything too stupid or dangerous. Dangerous... in this state of heavy traffic, impatient drivers, and all kinds of weird light cycles that make no sense whatsoever... includes hitting the brakes hard for a yellow light.
Regarding insurance... and yes, it is no-fault... it would be much wiser to get a non-points-offense (and therefore non-insurance-surcharge) $300 ticket rather than pay a $250 deductible and pay higher insurance rates for the next three years. The former is less than half of the latter.
Also, if you stop for every yellow light in this state, you'll never get anywhere. I hit traffic just to go to the supermarket on a late Saturday afternoon.
Finally... and this is a good one... while NJ doesn't have cameras at intersections, it does have cameras at EZ-Pass toll lanes all up and down the state's famous toll roads and even more famous river crossings. (New Jersey Turnpike, George Washington Bridge, etc) However, ever since they installed EZ-Pass, they can catch toll violators (either people who don't have EZ-Pass or people that are going faster than the 5mph limit) speeding through the lanes... but they don't follow up on the tickets they send out! As a result, if you go through an EZ-Pass lane in this state and you get a ticket for it, you might as well not pay it. If they can't handle EZ-Pass fines here, what makes you think they can handle cameras on the traffic signals?
These kind of things make me want to move to NYC and leave the car behind entirely. Late night subway rides in Harlem are not nearly as scary as getting to and from work in New Jersey.
I did, but it was unclear to me whether or not it was for business or for non-profit use.
In the case of the latter, I would be wrong to say that this is a bad use of Free Software. Open Source really doesn't relate to the commercial or non-profit use of the software, at least in the way it's supposed to work. Still, I wouldn't want to troll against such a good concept.
In the case of the former, I'm not wrong to state that there's little logical consistency in writing Free Software for business use. If you believe software should be free, but someone else is going to make money using the software you wrote, and you approve of that, you're morally inconsistent. It's a way of saying "Software should be free, but you can make money off of other things if you'd like." In that case, have a commercial-use license and a personal/non-profit-use license - one charges fees for usage, and one doesn't. That's the most logically sound solution. Netscape did it with success.
Of course, the rest of the post isn't a troll... the submitter was talking about Free Software, but the topic was labeled Open Source. Trust me, if I made a mistake like that, people would be all kinds of down my throat... like you were with your post.
Confused: Open Source Vs Free Software
on
Flash and Open Source
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Apparently, the person who submitted the story was appalled at the costs of developing in Macromedia Flash tools, and wanted to find something that was free.
It seems that person, however, did not wish to look at the source of whatever program he was going to use... he just wanted to have something that was free for use.
This is the problem with Open Source AND Free Software. While Open Source software is a nice idea in some respects, it seems that everyone thinks Open Source is another word for free. It's not. Plus, you can derive a lot of benefits from selling commercial software that is Open Source... unless you have low-lifes out there that will compile the source and use the resulting commercial software at no charge. Judging from what computer geeks do with commercial MUSIC, it's not hard to imagine.
And let's not forget the most sickening part of this all: this guy wants to use free software as a development tool in a commercial/business environment. Or, basically, profit off of someone else's hard work without having to put in any effort or support into the author's cause in a meaningful way. (come on, did you even think that this guy's company would send the author a thank-you card?) And there's absolutely no way in hell that there's any logical consistency in writing free software for business use.
Unfortunately, my example list is going to suck.:)
As far as I know, there's are a definite three "sequel" films that were better than the original: Lethal Weapon 2, Terminator 2, and The Empire Strikes Back. Of course there are some more, but the list is short and obscure.
That said, it wasn't the case that critics dismissed these films heavily before they came out, so these are poor examples. And the general rule is, either most sequels are worse than the original, or the original wasn't that great to begin with. The Mummy and The Mummy Returns are examples of the latter... The Mummy Returns was a superior movie in comparison to the original, but is not a superior movie in the grand scheme of film.
As for remakes...
The remake of "The Fast and the Furious" is a good movie, no matter what anyone says. "Rat Race" is a ripoff of "It's a Mad, Mad... World", but an extremely good one. The "Addams Family" movies were more watchable than the original show. "The Professional" was based on a good foreign film but stands as a good movie on its own.
Then again, most remakes are utter crap. However, most big budget or high profile movies are crap anyway. Critics usually are proven wrong when a few high-profile movies look as if they would bomb and bomb horrendously because of costs/history/reported fighting on the set, but then turn out to be watchable and maybe even good. Examples: "Titanic", "X-Men", "Charlie's Angels". (Ooooh... "Charlie's Angels" is a remake... not an Oscar winner, but a fun movie nevertheless)
I say this because "Spider Man" and "Gangs of New York" are the two movies I'd like to be optimistic about, but no one has any idea if they are any good and some critics are already taking potshots. We're assured that there will be some good movies coming out soon like "Matrix Reloaded", "The Minority Report", and "Austin Powers: Goldmember", but it would be nice if those two movies turned out good as well... if only to prove that comic book movies and big budget epics can be good at times.
And yea, I hope an "Akira" remake would be worth watching, instead of being something like the next "Final Fantasy" movie...
"Given Norrington's track record and the butchery that usually takes place under the guise of making something 'accessible,' it's hard to take this as extraordinarily good news."
Well, then don't watch the remake. The original is still out there.
Sure, I wouldn't have high hopes for a remake either, but then again you never know. A lot of film buffs have been highly skeptical about certain films (sequels, overbudget blockbusters, strangely-casted movies, remakes, etc.), only to eat crow later on when the film does well / is highly praised / wins some Oscars. Lately that has been happening a lot less, but perhaps they might make a good movie - not spectacular, but good - that would turn a new crowd of people to the original.
Or, the film could suck, and the critics would say "Rent the original, forget the remake". Either way, some of us are destined for some good cinema.
1. Yes, Microsoft products are made such that easy tasks are simple, yet complicated setups are still complicated. They put a lot of money into making things generally easy for most people, and although I don't always agree with their choices, I find myself "up and running" quickly with any Windows OS. Mac systems I find to be similarly easy, but more restrictive at times. Unix-based systems... well, it takes a while longer and a lot more effort to get baseline functionality in place. And if you don't know what you're doing, the learning curve is huge and you go through a lot of frustration. Anything requiring reading more than two paragraphs of documentation to get working is harder than what I'm typically used to.
That said, when you're trying to set up complex networks and complicated hardware setups, Windows can be as painful as Unix. But I don't blame them for making a "network wizard" - the target audience is too small, too smart, and needs too much flexibility for MS to really attack those kind of things like they did with simple dial-up networking or playing music files on a typical sound setup. Also, because they left most of the flexibility there, I have as many options as I can afford or comprehend. It's up to 3rd party vendors (software and hardware) to make their own products easy to use, flexible, powerful, cheap, etc. (Whatever market they're targeting)
2. Back to the main topic of CS and MSFT - I agree with the concept of "it's present, real, and you will run into it in the field".
I find it to be irritating when CS departments want to stick to Unix-only programming, just because there's a wide variety of systems out there that students may run into. I went through 4 years of college and, because I never got involved in any non-school projects (I had many problems with staying in-focus with school assignments and had to put extra time into that), I NEVER did a single CS assignment on anything but Solaris. This is just as bad as doing everything in Visual Studio... it's one company's product with one company's vision of how things should be. I may have learned many general concepts, but I won't know for a while just how much of what I learned was tied down to that particular OS or the specific products we used on our systems.
Furthermore, a lot can be said of practical programming experience... and I believe that flexibilty and adaptability among computer systems is as desirable a concept to learn in CS as are program organization and programming paradigms. Yes, we don't want to teach a generation how just to use MS products because they're 90% of the market... but we don't want them to learn only Java, only Scheme, etc...
As it turns out, there are universities out there that don't stick to only MS products for teaching, and that's good. However, many of these same universities are sticking only to teaching on one of the other systems available, and that's a very bad thing. You could say at least one thing about sticking to MS products: it may not be a good teaching philosophy in general, but if you're going to be stubborn and political, sticking with 80-90% of what's used out there is better than sticking with something that's only 5%.
I have nothing interesting to say. Certainly nothing interesting enough to top what you've done today. So just bask in the moment.
Besides, at least you didn't ask her with an e-mail. That would have been low. This is just... well, sweet but embarrassing. But that'll be your problem tomorrow.:)
Re: only incompetents are out of work... nope
on
The Laid-off Techie
·
· Score: 2
I agree with what you say... and yet, I don't think the current situation is the way to deal with these things.
I think that you bringing up doctors' residency brings up a very good idea... since college grads are not exactly ready for prime time and aren't worth as much as an experienced tech worker, why not provide solid growth and learning opportunities to them rather than cast them off to the side? There is little to no existing reference for setting up a "computer residency", but I firmly believe that such positions should be widely available... considering that colleges are very steadfast in eschewing the practical in favor of professing the academic, and employers are very demanding of prospective employees in terms of requiring specific skillsets. Why not provide something that bridges the gap?
This benefits everyone - it takes the onus off of colleges to provide technical training to high-tuition students; it provides employers with a way to employ young, promising individuals without spending a fortune on them or taking unnecessary risks in hiring them for crucial positions; and finally, although CS grads might start out with less money, at least they have an opportunity to make a decent living this way.
Does any of this sound horrible?
Re: only incompetents are out of work... nope
on
The Laid-off Techie
·
· Score: 2
Sadly, that's how most people in the field are reacting right now. College graduates simply aren't useful enough to hire. Therefore, they don't deserve jobs.
I've got two responses to this:
* What does it take to break into the field, then? Is it only when companies are spending money ridiculously and irresponsibly that newbies, no matter how competent or promising they are, can get jobs and make a living?
* Is a college degree in comp sci completely and practically useless? Is it becoming like majoring in Art History, where people go, "What kind of job can you get with an Art History degree?" People assume the opposite about CS - that you can get rich if you know computers no matter what. (This is oh-so-infinitely-wrong, but that's besides the point) Right now, I see it as the opposite... you can be quite the "starving coder" if you can't break into your field in a very big way. So basically, it's a useless degree if you can't get a job in the field. And right now, without good connections, it's really hard to get a job in the field no matter what your credentials.
Don't forget, a lot of other professions discriminate against CS degrees... usually CS majors don't have a diverse background (I can hear "Why the hell do I have to take breadth courses?!?!" echoing in the background), prospective employers try not to hire anyone that might be too smart, and who will subsequently get bored at an open position, and furthermore everyone thinks "Well, don't you REALLY want to go into computers?" Simply put, people from CS may have a lot of potential, but simply don't look like the most suitable candidates on paper. Kind of like how more experience beats less experience even if the more experienced candidate sucks.
I know everyone's going through a tough time, fresh college grads and middle aged programmers alike. But this whole thread is obnoxious. It's obvious that half the people here want to viciously yell at people who feel sorry for themselves... while the other half pretty much feel sorry for themselves. I rarely see anyone in these threads actually thinking about the problem and trying to work with others on a solution.
Ironically, that's supposed to be one of the strengths of a programmer... the ability to analyze complex problems and develop solutions. If nobody here is able to do that to help out some fellow unfortunate professionals... well, maybe none of you people should have a job right now.
It's a rather utopian idea to think that either phone or cable companies would be able to provide ANY of these services in the future.
The simple fact is, providing basic broadband service is already pushing their competency, and they do little or nothing to make sure these lines are abused or left vulnerable from the start. They simply lay down Draconian rules and turn off useful features when they get to be too much of a problem to fix correctly...
Furthermore, bandwidth caps are simply a way of saying "We can provide something really good, but we won't just cause if EVERYONE did that..." The truth of the matter is, a modest surcharge for increased bandwidth is quite reasonable (someone argued that $80 was really $80 CDN, which comes out to $50 USA... so that doesn't seem bad at all) but think of it this way... the phone companies and the cable companies own these networks pretty much from the start. Who do they pay if they add capacity? Themselves! I don't have any sympathy for them simply because point-to-point fiber links can carry insane amounts of traffic through some (relatively, in big business terms) modest equipment upgrades. Yes, it would be expensive for them if everyone downloaded 1MB/sec all the time, but for the few people who do that, it's certainly not worth doubling the price of the line for the customer. They can support it far easier than you think, and any attempt for them to stop such activity outright is to deny a market segment resonable service.
Then again, if someone has a tremendously good argument why, given that the fiber lines are in place, point to point connections between major networks are an information and financial bottleneck. My (arrogant) assumption is, $40 a month from 200 customers and $50 a month from 30 high bandwidth users more than pays for the equipment and maintenance for the capacity that can serve them both. I also believe that no matter what the official (monopoly inflated) price on that is, the real price of doing that is probably much cheaper.
This was an article written for Red Herring magazine. While we all know that the author is referring to OpenGL, I thought it was an appropriate editing choice to keep the number of technical terms down to a minimum. The focus of the story is not the technology, but the man himself.
Also, you have to think about the readers of Red Herring. An article written for that magazine would be best targeted toward the average business professional that likes learning about different businesses, industries, and methods - to be somewhat familiar with them. OpenGL is something that would be fairly obscure for them to learn about while reading on a couch in the reception area.
All in all, it would have been nice to see them give direct publicity to OpenGL, but I thought the article was very readable without its mention. Hence, it's a well written article partly for that fact.
I've contemplated the idea of a life in Montreal. It's one nice city.
I do all those cheapo/budget things like try to avoid cover charges, make food from scratch (for health reasons as well - "convenience" food has horrible nutritional value), take a cheap bus rather than drive to the city (it does save some money), etc. Granted, living around here is still insanely expensive, but my standard of living rocks. I get what I want and then some. I just have to be responsible and avoid impulsive decisions. And planning and organization goes a long way, including with budgeting and making spending decisions.
You're fairly lucky with your parents being generous like that, but you also seem quite responsible about it. There's nothing wrong with having solid resources, and there's a lot of virtue in being responsible about using those resources. You're definitely doing that, and you'll be set up well for the future.
However, I hate to burst your bubble...
In a less expensive place to live... a 9-to-5 minimum wage job still barely cuts it. 40 hours a week for $5 an hour gets you $200 salary, $150 take home per week. By reasonable spending habits, that means you need living arrangements that cost around or less than $200 a month... the rule of "one week's salary should cover one month's rent".
No joke, that's really hard to find. Anywhere.
Now, it's possible... yet very difficult and sacrificial... to get utilities down to $50 a month, keep food at $100 a month, and forget the idea of a car. That's no microwave food, no cable, no phone, and no life. But it's possible.
Since you take home $150 a week, you get $600 a month. You just blew $350 on living very meagerly. This is having no loans, no credit cards, no upcoming expenses, and probably no health insurance either.:( (well, in the US anyway)
So you get $250 left. For a month. For haircuts, clothes, bus fare, phone calls, etc. Put $100 a month in the bank, and stretch the other $150 really thin.
It's really quite difficult to get a part time job that will let you work 40 hours a week consistently. Most part time jobs I know of will not accomodate this kind of arrangement, especially because they hate to pay overtime. So, you need to be on really good terms with the boss to pull that off.
As far as getting two part time jobs, you run the risk that both will force you to work at the same time. Part time jobs are notoriously bossy like that. But it's possible to try and arrange it such that they never interfere.
If you can get two, hell even three part time jobs, and work 60 hours a week, you bump up your income and you have flexibility when one job decides to cut your hours. (Which they do without even asking, because it's happened to me countless times before I got a REAL job) If you can keep that going, that's about $300 more take home pay per month. That'll all stay in the bank, because you'll have no life anyway. This is crisis management in two ways: you'll be saving considerably more money, and if you decide to quit one job (or get fired, eek), you still have two others to work 40 hours a week at... and you can live on 40 hours a week as demonstrated above.
This is really really hard to arrange properly.
This is also like living as a prisoner.
Also, 60 hours a week of part time work will kill you. The bullshit alone with give you a stroke. 60 hours a week doing minimum wage labor is physically tough... depending on the jobs you take, most people can't handle it.
But the good news is, you can expect better than minimum wage. At least in this country, there's a wide range of full-time work, with benefits, available for up to $9 an hour to start... with raises in the future. Americans are quite spoiled like that. And furthermore, one full-time job is usually far less strenuous than 3 part time jobs. Pays more, too. That doesn't change the fact that you have to live like a prisoner if you want to save money and not go into debt, but after a while life gets better.
People who do this usually don't get anywhere in the world, and it's sad to see these people living at home with their parents and blowing all their money on stupid shit... and it's a lot of money to blow when you're making that much AND you don't have to pay rent. Living in America, the media always pushes you to spend even MORE, as well. Life just isn't good without a nice car, designer clothes, and a vacation every two months. (Or so they make it seem)
That's why the people who whine about their lifestyle are usually the last people who should be whining. But on the flipside, living on minimum wage is nearly impossible for a single person supporting his/herself only. And it's a house of cards that can easily collapse and send you into welfare, even homelessness.
And in America, it's REALLY hard to come back from that. (Yes, even with the Democrats)
I won't apply this to all situations... in Iowa, the cost of living may be cheap enough to pull this off. In Canada, money might go a lot farther. But here, in NYC, there's a lot of people just barely making it with these lifestyles, and a lot of people living off government subsidies, and a lot of people sleeping in churches. Which is why it's that hard to swallow when someone in college (of all places) thinks that "yea, it can be done". I mean, no offense, but from what I've seen, people in college never have to touch that kind of life, and really don't know anything about it. (Hell, I don't know about it either, I just work hard to stay out of it)
(I'll never forget when one of my peers in CS... in an ethics class... pompously stated that there's no excuse for anyone not to have a computer anymore, because they're only $500. I hated that fucking ethics class.)
Trust funds and college loans have the same effect... to pay off college now so you don't have to worry about it now.
The difference is, paying it back later. With a trust fund you don't have to, but then you're out the money. With a college loan... yecch.
I say yecch because trust funds didn't cover it all, and I have a minimal loan to repay. However, it's an extra $100 a month in expenses, and that's icky when you're looking at $600 a month disposable income after rent, utilities, and food. Shoehorning car payments, car maintenance, various bills, savings, and personal spending into that leftover budget is already kinda constricting. That extra $100 is noticed. That's money that could have went to a retirement fund.
Then again, I won't even pretend to know what it's like to have a loan that's 2 to 3 times the size of the one I took out. And at least I have a job.
Anyway, back on topic...
With college, you pay tuition and room and board, and you have an entire life for yourself. With a spartan lifestyle, you can make a little go a long way. This doesn't quite work out the same in the real world... a regular apartment's rent is usually way more expensive than college housing. Not everything is in walking distance. There's the problem of health insurance. All I'm saying is, students get quite a deal. If you have to take loans out for that, it sucks later on... but it's a nice thing to be able to get loans to go live the college life for 4 years and not really have to worry about shit in the meantime. (relatively speaking)
Oh yea, in the real world, 20k takehome pay ain't shit. However, 20k a year for in-state tutition would get me a very posh lifestyle if I had to go back to college.
It's a somewhat condescending statement, but don't take it personally... I direct it to all college students who aren't aware of the fact that college living is not as challenging as living on your own with a full time job.
I went to a school that had a bunch of spoiled brat rich kids attending, so you can imagine that I've seen a lot of college students that truly don't know what it takes to survive without substantial help and luck.
In your case, you will adjust when the time comes, most likely, as most people do. It isn't quite the same as the HS to Univ transition, because college still shields you from most of the responsibility and challenges that working-class people face. College trains you for those challenges, but it certainly doesn't force you into accepting them. You can actually live through college just like HS if you were a good HS student (one who attended class, took good notes, and could do your own laundry). You don't have to cook every day, and you have far less personal financial responsibility and burden... among other things. But most people can handle it. With a college education, assuming you're not too spoiled at the moment by your family, you'll definitely handle it.
Poor college students are best trained for the real world transition. Rich ones are horribly trained for the real world transition, but usually mommy and daddy pay for their car and apartment for a little while after college, so they have even a cushier time the whole way through.
In any case, good luck with the transition when you come to it. Some people have an easier time than others.
Oh, and yea, the US sucks for out-of-college entry level employees during times of recession. Basically, I'm one of the only people in my class that didn't have to move back home. Had I not accepted this position, I would have had no health care coverage. Unemployment would have given me nothing, since I had only part time jobs prior to this. NYC is particularly cut-throat because of the high cost of living... lunch sandwiches are $6, my car insurance for liability alone is $2300 a year, bars charge $10-$15 cover to get in, city clubs charge $40 to get in, a grande latte is $3.60, my utilities run $85 a month with no long distance calls made (and our water and heat are covered by the landlord, so it would be more if that were not the case), sweaters I wear to work cost $30-$40 apiece, the cell phone runs $40 a month, cable modem runs $40 a month, don't forget bridge/tunnel tolls ($6 to go over the George Washington Bridge), bus fare (soon to be $3 here for one way into NYC), gas and car maintenance, supermarket trips, the occasional fast food ($5 at least for any McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendy's meal), and anything else extravagant. I'm reluctant to get tickets to sporting events, attend concerts, or buy myself cocktails in any club because of the high costs involved. $8 for Red Bull and vodka (CHEAP vodka) is insane.
Most metro areas are better than this. But good luck anyway.
Well, you're right, I could live with my parents and have free food, free laundry, free car insurance, and a host of different free things... all at the expense of living in an area where I don't think I can expand my horizons much or enjoy my life fully. But I could do it.
Also, I could get an apartment closer to food and laundry. In the city, this would be prohibitively expensive. In the suburbs, this would probably get me an apartment that's not as good for the same rent.
Living in off-campus housing after college... well, that would suck in my case. I hated the area where I went to college. I specifically decided to move back home (the home area I grew up in, not the home my parents moved to) because I missed it and there was an enormous amount of opportunity there. New York is, after all, the biggest city in the US. (Only upstaged by Mexico City on this side of the world) And certainly one of the greatest cities ever. That alone to me validates me for "don't cry me a river" status.
However, this detracts from the original point... in this economy, even with my degree which is rather versatile, and my skills and job experience (both of which are now rather extensive)... it would STILL not be easy for me to switch careers. It would hurt a lot of people right now. Switching careers in the real world is a whole level of magnitude harder than switching majors in college. And it's that much worse in a recession.
I encourage people to switch careers when they feasibly can if they're dissatisfied with their career path so far. A career should not be a trap. But I emphasize... it's not EASY.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, as opposed to the link being broken 3 minutes after the story is posted because of the
It's like the Darwin Awards for webservers.
I had some other wisecrack to say, but it's been a long weekend and my skull is broken, so that's about it.
Sounds like a nice deal.
$400/month rent is hard to find in that area of NJ, though. I know, I live about a mile from the bridge in a modest (not poor but not rich) middle class neighborhood, and my apartment is $600 a month... and it's considered a terrific bargain by everyone who looks at it. I've done some apartment searches with other people, and the prices are not very low. In the end, I believe you have a good deal, but for most people it's still pretty pricey to live that close to NYC.
Plus... I wish I lived in the city. I'd pay more to do that. I don't feel sorry for anyone that does that and can't afford furniture after the fact, but keep in mind that some people are happier in the city rather than in suburbia. (For some people, it's the opposite, which they get to live happy and cheap)
???
If you have a job making $60k, when do you have time for all those job interviews?
???
(Note: I'm 22, get paid less than 30k, and I work 50 hours a week... I'd have to use my vacation days to just look for jobs)
(Arrogant Slashdot User - just to get it out of the way)
Then why the fuck do you live in New York City if it's so expensive? Move to the boondocks, idiot! Save money by getting an apartment for $300 a month in Eastern PA!
(Realistic human being)
No, that's not rational. They need IT workers in NYC just as much as (if not more than) they need them in other locations. Companies should pay their workers enough to keep up with the local cost of living relative with their skills. A programmer in New York should not be paid as low as a programmer in Tulsa, OK - that is unfair and insulting to those who put up with all the bullshit that goes with living and working in the big city.
By the way, it's cheaper to have an apartment in Manhattan than it is to live in and commute from anywhere more than 10 miles away. People who live in the city they work in save fossil fuels, ease congestion on the roads, reduce accidents, reduce stress and the ill mental effects that are spawned from excessive stress, save tax dollars, and keep insurance rates down. It may be more noble to pay the apartment cost up front than to pay - and make society pay - in indirect but very significant ways.
FYI...
It was the college grads that got really fucked in the downturn. Not just in Comp Sci, but in all fields. Companies were able to shop around for good employees who had experience, were laid off from other jobs, and who would take a big pay cut. A college student can't really compete in a situation like that... all the benefits of being young and looking for just decent pay go right out the window when people with experience will take decent pay.
I work for a company as a shipping manager, being right out of college. I'm being paid very low for my credentials - $28,000 a year. In New York City, no less. My salary in this area is pretty much shit - people without college degrees are paid nearly as much. Meanwhile, I have a BS in CS with a minor in MIS. In the good economy, I was supposed to start with 60% higher pay.
FYI, none of the IT staff here are below 35 years old. Some are balding. They are very good, talented people, and they are paid well. I'm not jealous at all, but this reality contradicts with your statements.
I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me (I'm very happy and saving money), and I'm certainly not flaming you, but for all the arrogant types (who are out in full force today) - many many people were hurt by this economic downturn. Please don't relate the employed and unemployed as genius and stupid... in most cases it's more like fortunate and unlucky.
As someone who has to commute to work in a very densely populated area of New Jersey... I can fully agree with this.
Yes, we are assinine drivers. Get over it. They are worse in New York, and even much worse anywhere else where driver's licenses are as easy to get as filling out a form. For all the complaints you hear about Jersey drivers, we have some very strict requirements to get a legal drivers license here. (to fabricate one, however, is quite easy... even the real ones look fake) Basically, the only thing they do not test you for is highway driving... and some would argue that they should be doing that too. If you've been driving a few years in New Jersey without any serious accidents or a lot of "near-misses"... you might be an asshole, but consider yourself a skilled driver.
Which brings us to light changing cycles.
In this state, there is an actual danger of someone forcing you to the side of the road and beating you with a heavy object if you piss them off on the road. You don't have to drive in fear, but just don't do anything too stupid or dangerous. Dangerous... in this state of heavy traffic, impatient drivers, and all kinds of weird light cycles that make no sense whatsoever... includes hitting the brakes hard for a yellow light.
Regarding insurance... and yes, it is no-fault... it would be much wiser to get a non-points-offense (and therefore non-insurance-surcharge) $300 ticket rather than pay a $250 deductible and pay higher insurance rates for the next three years. The former is less than half of the latter.
Also, if you stop for every yellow light in this state, you'll never get anywhere. I hit traffic just to go to the supermarket on a late Saturday afternoon.
Finally... and this is a good one... while NJ doesn't have cameras at intersections, it does have cameras at EZ-Pass toll lanes all up and down the state's famous toll roads and even more famous river crossings. (New Jersey Turnpike, George Washington Bridge, etc) However, ever since they installed EZ-Pass, they can catch toll violators (either people who don't have EZ-Pass or people that are going faster than the 5mph limit) speeding through the lanes... but they don't follow up on the tickets they send out! As a result, if you go through an EZ-Pass lane in this state and you get a ticket for it, you might as well not pay it. If they can't handle EZ-Pass fines here, what makes you think they can handle cameras on the traffic signals?
These kind of things make me want to move to NYC and leave the car behind entirely. Late night subway rides in Harlem are not nearly as scary as getting to and from work in New Jersey.
I did, but it was unclear to me whether or not it was for business or for non-profit use.
In the case of the latter, I would be wrong to say that this is a bad use of Free Software. Open Source really doesn't relate to the commercial or non-profit use of the software, at least in the way it's supposed to work. Still, I wouldn't want to troll against such a good concept.
In the case of the former, I'm not wrong to state that there's little logical consistency in writing Free Software for business use. If you believe software should be free, but someone else is going to make money using the software you wrote, and you approve of that, you're morally inconsistent. It's a way of saying "Software should be free, but you can make money off of other things if you'd like." In that case, have a commercial-use license and a personal/non-profit-use license - one charges fees for usage, and one doesn't. That's the most logically sound solution. Netscape did it with success.
Of course, the rest of the post isn't a troll... the submitter was talking about Free Software, but the topic was labeled Open Source. Trust me, if I made a mistake like that, people would be all kinds of down my throat... like you were with your post.
Apparently, the person who submitted the story was appalled at the costs of developing in Macromedia Flash tools, and wanted to find something that was free.
It seems that person, however, did not wish to look at the source of whatever program he was going to use... he just wanted to have something that was free for use.
This is the problem with Open Source AND Free Software. While Open Source software is a nice idea in some respects, it seems that everyone thinks Open Source is another word for free. It's not. Plus, you can derive a lot of benefits from selling commercial software that is Open Source... unless you have low-lifes out there that will compile the source and use the resulting commercial software at no charge. Judging from what computer geeks do with commercial MUSIC, it's not hard to imagine.
And let's not forget the most sickening part of this all: this guy wants to use free software as a development tool in a commercial/business environment. Or, basically, profit off of someone else's hard work without having to put in any effort or support into the author's cause in a meaningful way. (come on, did you even think that this guy's company would send the author a thank-you card?) And there's absolutely no way in hell that there's any logical consistency in writing free software for business use.
And you want us to PAY for this crap?
Unfortunately, my example list is going to suck. :)
As far as I know, there's are a definite three "sequel" films that were better than the original: Lethal Weapon 2, Terminator 2, and The Empire Strikes Back. Of course there are some more, but the list is short and obscure.
That said, it wasn't the case that critics dismissed these films heavily before they came out, so these are poor examples. And the general rule is, either most sequels are worse than the original, or the original wasn't that great to begin with. The Mummy and The Mummy Returns are examples of the latter... The Mummy Returns was a superior movie in comparison to the original, but is not a superior movie in the grand scheme of film.
As for remakes...
The remake of "The Fast and the Furious" is a good movie, no matter what anyone says. "Rat Race" is a ripoff of "It's a Mad, Mad... World", but an extremely good one. The "Addams Family" movies were more watchable than the original show. "The Professional" was based on a good foreign film but stands as a good movie on its own.
Then again, most remakes are utter crap. However, most big budget or high profile movies are crap anyway. Critics usually are proven wrong when a few high-profile movies look as if they would bomb and bomb horrendously because of costs/history/reported fighting on the set, but then turn out to be watchable and maybe even good. Examples: "Titanic", "X-Men", "Charlie's Angels". (Ooooh... "Charlie's Angels" is a remake... not an Oscar winner, but a fun movie nevertheless)
I say this because "Spider Man" and "Gangs of New York" are the two movies I'd like to be optimistic about, but no one has any idea if they are any good and some critics are already taking potshots. We're assured that there will be some good movies coming out soon like "Matrix Reloaded", "The Minority Report", and "Austin Powers: Goldmember", but it would be nice if those two movies turned out good as well... if only to prove that comic book movies and big budget epics can be good at times.
And yea, I hope an "Akira" remake would be worth watching, instead of being something like the next "Final Fantasy" movie...
"Given Norrington's track record and the butchery that usually takes place under the guise of making something 'accessible,' it's hard to take this as extraordinarily good news."
Well, then don't watch the remake. The original is still out there.
Sure, I wouldn't have high hopes for a remake either, but then again you never know. A lot of film buffs have been highly skeptical about certain films (sequels, overbudget blockbusters, strangely-casted movies, remakes, etc.), only to eat crow later on when the film does well / is highly praised / wins some Oscars. Lately that has been happening a lot less, but perhaps they might make a good movie - not spectacular, but good - that would turn a new crowd of people to the original.
Or, the film could suck, and the critics would say "Rent the original, forget the remake". Either way, some of us are destined for some good cinema.
"Kathleen Fent, will you marry me?"
No wait, that wasn't today...
Does this financial plan work if you only sell copies of the dancing heaves of Elaine Benes?
(sorry, this whole story reminds me of that Seinfeld episode)
... doesn't mean you shouldn't learn it.
Regarding topics addressed in the parent post:
1. Yes, Microsoft products are made such that easy tasks are simple, yet complicated setups are still complicated. They put a lot of money into making things generally easy for most people, and although I don't always agree with their choices, I find myself "up and running" quickly with any Windows OS. Mac systems I find to be similarly easy, but more restrictive at times. Unix-based systems... well, it takes a while longer and a lot more effort to get baseline functionality in place. And if you don't know what you're doing, the learning curve is huge and you go through a lot of frustration. Anything requiring reading more than two paragraphs of documentation to get working is harder than what I'm typically used to.
That said, when you're trying to set up complex networks and complicated hardware setups, Windows can be as painful as Unix. But I don't blame them for making a "network wizard" - the target audience is too small, too smart, and needs too much flexibility for MS to really attack those kind of things like they did with simple dial-up networking or playing music files on a typical sound setup. Also, because they left most of the flexibility there, I have as many options as I can afford or comprehend. It's up to 3rd party vendors (software and hardware) to make their own products easy to use, flexible, powerful, cheap, etc. (Whatever market they're targeting)
2. Back to the main topic of CS and MSFT - I agree with the concept of "it's present, real, and you will run into it in the field".
I find it to be irritating when CS departments want to stick to Unix-only programming, just because there's a wide variety of systems out there that students may run into. I went through 4 years of college and, because I never got involved in any non-school projects (I had many problems with staying in-focus with school assignments and had to put extra time into that), I NEVER did a single CS assignment on anything but Solaris. This is just as bad as doing everything in Visual Studio... it's one company's product with one company's vision of how things should be. I may have learned many general concepts, but I won't know for a while just how much of what I learned was tied down to that particular OS or the specific products we used on our systems.
Furthermore, a lot can be said of practical programming experience... and I believe that flexibilty and adaptability among computer systems is as desirable a concept to learn in CS as are program organization and programming paradigms. Yes, we don't want to teach a generation how just to use MS products because they're 90% of the market... but we don't want them to learn only Java, only Scheme, etc...
As it turns out, there are universities out there that don't stick to only MS products for teaching, and that's good. However, many of these same universities are sticking only to teaching on one of the other systems available, and that's a very bad thing. You could say at least one thing about sticking to MS products: it may not be a good teaching philosophy in general, but if you're going to be stubborn and political, sticking with 80-90% of what's used out there is better than sticking with something that's only 5%.
I have nothing interesting to say. Certainly nothing interesting enough to top what you've done today. So just bask in the moment.
:)
Besides, at least you didn't ask her with an e-mail. That would have been low. This is just... well, sweet but embarrassing. But that'll be your problem tomorrow.
I agree with what you say... and yet, I don't think the current situation is the way to deal with these things.
I think that you bringing up doctors' residency brings up a very good idea... since college grads are not exactly ready for prime time and aren't worth as much as an experienced tech worker, why not provide solid growth and learning opportunities to them rather than cast them off to the side? There is little to no existing reference for setting up a "computer residency", but I firmly believe that such positions should be widely available... considering that colleges are very steadfast in eschewing the practical in favor of professing the academic, and employers are very demanding of prospective employees in terms of requiring specific skillsets. Why not provide something that bridges the gap?
This benefits everyone - it takes the onus off of colleges to provide technical training to high-tuition students; it provides employers with a way to employ young, promising individuals without spending a fortune on them or taking unnecessary risks in hiring them for crucial positions; and finally, although CS grads might start out with less money, at least they have an opportunity to make a decent living this way.
Does any of this sound horrible?
Sadly, that's how most people in the field are reacting right now. College graduates simply aren't useful enough to hire. Therefore, they don't deserve jobs.
I've got two responses to this:
* What does it take to break into the field, then? Is it only when companies are spending money ridiculously and irresponsibly that newbies, no matter how competent or promising they are, can get jobs and make a living?
* Is a college degree in comp sci completely and practically useless? Is it becoming like majoring in Art History, where people go, "What kind of job can you get with an Art History degree?" People assume the opposite about CS - that you can get rich if you know computers no matter what. (This is oh-so-infinitely-wrong, but that's besides the point) Right now, I see it as the opposite... you can be quite the "starving coder" if you can't break into your field in a very big way. So basically, it's a useless degree if you can't get a job in the field. And right now, without good connections, it's really hard to get a job in the field no matter what your credentials.
Don't forget, a lot of other professions discriminate against CS degrees... usually CS majors don't have a diverse background (I can hear "Why the hell do I have to take breadth courses?!?!" echoing in the background), prospective employers try not to hire anyone that might be too smart, and who will subsequently get bored at an open position, and furthermore everyone thinks "Well, don't you REALLY want to go into computers?" Simply put, people from CS may have a lot of potential, but simply don't look like the most suitable candidates on paper. Kind of like how more experience beats less experience even if the more experienced candidate sucks.
I know everyone's going through a tough time, fresh college grads and middle aged programmers alike. But this whole thread is obnoxious. It's obvious that half the people here want to viciously yell at people who feel sorry for themselves... while the other half pretty much feel sorry for themselves. I rarely see anyone in these threads actually thinking about the problem and trying to work with others on a solution.
Ironically, that's supposed to be one of the strengths of a programmer... the ability to analyze complex problems and develop solutions. If nobody here is able to do that to help out some fellow unfortunate professionals... well, maybe none of you people should have a job right now.
It's a rather utopian idea to think that either phone or cable companies would be able to provide ANY of these services in the future.
The simple fact is, providing basic broadband service is already pushing their competency, and they do little or nothing to make sure these lines are abused or left vulnerable from the start. They simply lay down Draconian rules and turn off useful features when they get to be too much of a problem to fix correctly...
Furthermore, bandwidth caps are simply a way of saying "We can provide something really good, but we won't just cause if EVERYONE did that..." The truth of the matter is, a modest surcharge for increased bandwidth is quite reasonable (someone argued that $80 was really $80 CDN, which comes out to $50 USA... so that doesn't seem bad at all) but think of it this way... the phone companies and the cable companies own these networks pretty much from the start. Who do they pay if they add capacity? Themselves! I don't have any sympathy for them simply because point-to-point fiber links can carry insane amounts of traffic through some (relatively, in big business terms) modest equipment upgrades. Yes, it would be expensive for them if everyone downloaded 1MB/sec all the time, but for the few people who do that, it's certainly not worth doubling the price of the line for the customer. They can support it far easier than you think, and any attempt for them to stop such activity outright is to deny a market segment resonable service.
Then again, if someone has a tremendously good argument why, given that the fiber lines are in place, point to point connections between major networks are an information and financial bottleneck. My (arrogant) assumption is, $40 a month from 200 customers and $50 a month from 30 high bandwidth users more than pays for the equipment and maintenance for the capacity that can serve them both. I also believe that no matter what the official (monopoly inflated) price on that is, the real price of doing that is probably much cheaper.
This was an article written for Red Herring magazine. While we all know that the author is referring to OpenGL, I thought it was an appropriate editing choice to keep the number of technical terms down to a minimum. The focus of the story is not the technology, but the man himself.
Also, you have to think about the readers of Red Herring. An article written for that magazine would be best targeted toward the average business professional that likes learning about different businesses, industries, and methods - to be somewhat familiar with them. OpenGL is something that would be fairly obscure for them to learn about while reading on a couch in the reception area.
All in all, it would have been nice to see them give direct publicity to OpenGL, but I thought the article was very readable without its mention. Hence, it's a well written article partly for that fact.
I've contemplated the idea of a life in Montreal. It's one nice city.
:( (well, in the US anyway)
I do all those cheapo/budget things like try to avoid cover charges, make food from scratch (for health reasons as well - "convenience" food has horrible nutritional value), take a cheap bus rather than drive to the city (it does save some money), etc. Granted, living around here is still insanely expensive, but my standard of living rocks. I get what I want and then some. I just have to be responsible and avoid impulsive decisions. And planning and organization goes a long way, including with budgeting and making spending decisions.
You're fairly lucky with your parents being generous like that, but you also seem quite responsible about it. There's nothing wrong with having solid resources, and there's a lot of virtue in being responsible about using those resources. You're definitely doing that, and you'll be set up well for the future.
However, I hate to burst your bubble...
In a less expensive place to live... a 9-to-5 minimum wage job still barely cuts it. 40 hours a week for $5 an hour gets you $200 salary, $150 take home per week. By reasonable spending habits, that means you need living arrangements that cost around or less than $200 a month... the rule of "one week's salary should cover one month's rent".
No joke, that's really hard to find. Anywhere.
Now, it's possible... yet very difficult and sacrificial... to get utilities down to $50 a month, keep food at $100 a month, and forget the idea of a car. That's no microwave food, no cable, no phone, and no life. But it's possible.
Since you take home $150 a week, you get $600 a month. You just blew $350 on living very meagerly. This is having no loans, no credit cards, no upcoming expenses, and probably no health insurance either.
So you get $250 left. For a month. For haircuts, clothes, bus fare, phone calls, etc. Put $100 a month in the bank, and stretch the other $150 really thin.
It's really quite difficult to get a part time job that will let you work 40 hours a week consistently. Most part time jobs I know of will not accomodate this kind of arrangement, especially because they hate to pay overtime. So, you need to be on really good terms with the boss to pull that off.
As far as getting two part time jobs, you run the risk that both will force you to work at the same time. Part time jobs are notoriously bossy like that. But it's possible to try and arrange it such that they never interfere.
If you can get two, hell even three part time jobs, and work 60 hours a week, you bump up your income and you have flexibility when one job decides to cut your hours. (Which they do without even asking, because it's happened to me countless times before I got a REAL job) If you can keep that going, that's about $300 more take home pay per month. That'll all stay in the bank, because you'll have no life anyway. This is crisis management in two ways: you'll be saving considerably more money, and if you decide to quit one job (or get fired, eek), you still have two others to work 40 hours a week at... and you can live on 40 hours a week as demonstrated above.
This is really really hard to arrange properly.
This is also like living as a prisoner.
Also, 60 hours a week of part time work will kill you. The bullshit alone with give you a stroke. 60 hours a week doing minimum wage labor is physically tough... depending on the jobs you take, most people can't handle it.
But the good news is, you can expect better than minimum wage. At least in this country, there's a wide range of full-time work, with benefits, available for up to $9 an hour to start... with raises in the future. Americans are quite spoiled like that. And furthermore, one full-time job is usually far less strenuous than 3 part time jobs. Pays more, too. That doesn't change the fact that you have to live like a prisoner if you want to save money and not go into debt, but after a while life gets better.
People who do this usually don't get anywhere in the world, and it's sad to see these people living at home with their parents and blowing all their money on stupid shit... and it's a lot of money to blow when you're making that much AND you don't have to pay rent. Living in America, the media always pushes you to spend even MORE, as well. Life just isn't good without a nice car, designer clothes, and a vacation every two months. (Or so they make it seem)
That's why the people who whine about their lifestyle are usually the last people who should be whining. But on the flipside, living on minimum wage is nearly impossible for a single person supporting his/herself only. And it's a house of cards that can easily collapse and send you into welfare, even homelessness.
And in America, it's REALLY hard to come back from that. (Yes, even with the Democrats)
I won't apply this to all situations... in Iowa, the cost of living may be cheap enough to pull this off. In Canada, money might go a lot farther. But here, in NYC, there's a lot of people just barely making it with these lifestyles, and a lot of people living off government subsidies, and a lot of people sleeping in churches. Which is why it's that hard to swallow when someone in college (of all places) thinks that "yea, it can be done". I mean, no offense, but from what I've seen, people in college never have to touch that kind of life, and really don't know anything about it. (Hell, I don't know about it either, I just work hard to stay out of it)
(I'll never forget when one of my peers in CS... in an ethics class... pompously stated that there's no excuse for anyone not to have a computer anymore, because they're only $500. I hated that fucking ethics class.)
I've seen people do that.
It's hell.
I don't get it.
Trust funds and college loans have the same effect... to pay off college now so you don't have to worry about it now.
The difference is, paying it back later. With a trust fund you don't have to, but then you're out the money. With a college loan... yecch.
I say yecch because trust funds didn't cover it all, and I have a minimal loan to repay. However, it's an extra $100 a month in expenses, and that's icky when you're looking at $600 a month disposable income after rent, utilities, and food. Shoehorning car payments, car maintenance, various bills, savings, and personal spending into that leftover budget is already kinda constricting. That extra $100 is noticed. That's money that could have went to a retirement fund.
Then again, I won't even pretend to know what it's like to have a loan that's 2 to 3 times the size of the one I took out. And at least I have a job.
Anyway, back on topic...
With college, you pay tuition and room and board, and you have an entire life for yourself. With a spartan lifestyle, you can make a little go a long way. This doesn't quite work out the same in the real world... a regular apartment's rent is usually way more expensive than college housing. Not everything is in walking distance. There's the problem of health insurance. All I'm saying is, students get quite a deal. If you have to take loans out for that, it sucks later on... but it's a nice thing to be able to get loans to go live the college life for 4 years and not really have to worry about shit in the meantime. (relatively speaking)
Oh yea, in the real world, 20k takehome pay ain't shit. However, 20k a year for in-state tutition would get me a very posh lifestyle if I had to go back to college.
you forgot... all the radio stations are owned by Clear Channel or Infinity Broadcasting.
:-P
Hey, maybe Rush can just do his show using Ogg Vorbis streams.
(If that doesn't sound patently ridiculous to you... it's time to go out and get some sunlight)
It's a somewhat condescending statement, but don't take it personally... I direct it to all college students who aren't aware of the fact that college living is not as challenging as living on your own with a full time job.
I went to a school that had a bunch of spoiled brat rich kids attending, so you can imagine that I've seen a lot of college students that truly don't know what it takes to survive without substantial help and luck.
In your case, you will adjust when the time comes, most likely, as most people do. It isn't quite the same as the HS to Univ transition, because college still shields you from most of the responsibility and challenges that working-class people face. College trains you for those challenges, but it certainly doesn't force you into accepting them. You can actually live through college just like HS if you were a good HS student (one who attended class, took good notes, and could do your own laundry). You don't have to cook every day, and you have far less personal financial responsibility and burden... among other things. But most people can handle it. With a college education, assuming you're not too spoiled at the moment by your family, you'll definitely handle it.
Poor college students are best trained for the real world transition. Rich ones are horribly trained for the real world transition, but usually mommy and daddy pay for their car and apartment for a little while after college, so they have even a cushier time the whole way through.
In any case, good luck with the transition when you come to it. Some people have an easier time than others.
Oh, and yea, the US sucks for out-of-college entry level employees during times of recession. Basically, I'm one of the only people in my class that didn't have to move back home. Had I not accepted this position, I would have had no health care coverage. Unemployment would have given me nothing, since I had only part time jobs prior to this. NYC is particularly cut-throat because of the high cost of living... lunch sandwiches are $6, my car insurance for liability alone is $2300 a year, bars charge $10-$15 cover to get in, city clubs charge $40 to get in, a grande latte is $3.60, my utilities run $85 a month with no long distance calls made (and our water and heat are covered by the landlord, so it would be more if that were not the case), sweaters I wear to work cost $30-$40 apiece, the cell phone runs $40 a month, cable modem runs $40 a month, don't forget bridge/tunnel tolls ($6 to go over the George Washington Bridge), bus fare (soon to be $3 here for one way into NYC), gas and car maintenance, supermarket trips, the occasional fast food ($5 at least for any McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendy's meal), and anything else extravagant. I'm reluctant to get tickets to sporting events, attend concerts, or buy myself cocktails in any club because of the high costs involved. $8 for Red Bull and vodka (CHEAP vodka) is insane.
Most metro areas are better than this. But good luck anyway.
Well, you're right, I could live with my parents and have free food, free laundry, free car insurance, and a host of different free things... all at the expense of living in an area where I don't think I can expand my horizons much or enjoy my life fully. But I could do it.
Also, I could get an apartment closer to food and laundry. In the city, this would be prohibitively expensive. In the suburbs, this would probably get me an apartment that's not as good for the same rent.
Living in off-campus housing after college... well, that would suck in my case. I hated the area where I went to college. I specifically decided to move back home (the home area I grew up in, not the home my parents moved to) because I missed it and there was an enormous amount of opportunity there. New York is, after all, the biggest city in the US. (Only upstaged by Mexico City on this side of the world) And certainly one of the greatest cities ever. That alone to me validates me for "don't cry me a river" status.
However, this detracts from the original point... in this economy, even with my degree which is rather versatile, and my skills and job experience (both of which are now rather extensive)... it would STILL not be easy for me to switch careers. It would hurt a lot of people right now. Switching careers in the real world is a whole level of magnitude harder than switching majors in college. And it's that much worse in a recession.
I encourage people to switch careers when they feasibly can if they're dissatisfied with their career path so far. A career should not be a trap. But I emphasize... it's not EASY.