My only problem with "System Administrator" is it really doesn't tell you anything more that "Something to do with computers".
Actually, my first real job was for a big government contractor; an IT body shop basically. They didn't want to narrow down what slot they could stick people in, so they had a whole laundry-list of titles carefully crafted to mean nothing but your pay scale. When I left that job I was a (I kid you not) "Hardware/Software Specialist"
Windows may have lousy tech support. It may have lousy help. It may have lousy manuals. I wouldn't know. I've never used or needed any of them to do what I needed to on Windows. Not even the first time. I hate MS marketing practices as much as the next guy, but their ease of use is top notch. Linux will be ready for the masses when new users can be told NOT to RTFM.
"every new version of *every* piece of software Microsoft releases from the OS to the browser scrambles the locations of the menus and/or options"
I think maybe you're exagerating a little. "Every?" I can think of one (Visual Studio 6 -> 7). And it really pissed me off, because it's such an exception. Everything else tends to keep menus consistent (even when they desperately need improvement) Anyway, Linux has its strengths, but you seem to be arguing that Linux usability and interface consistency are comparable to that of Windows. In which case I want some of what you're smoking.
But he does not attempt it. He talks about attempting it. He shows off impressive looking "capsules" that are clearly far to heavy to be launched. He stages, and trumpets the success of, "test launches" using comercially available rocket engines known to A) work, and B) be incapable of lofting a man into space.
He's not trying to get launched into space. He's trying to get publicity, and to have everyone think he has courage. How many articles have there been saying how brave this guy is? I can't count them. How many high has he been lifted by a rocket so far? Not one inch.
Sadly, I don't think he will ever earn the darwin award. He's after the publicity of "planning" to launch into space. He's clearly smart enough to not try more than talking about it.
No, the parents point is that there was no question of whether it would work, others have "tested" similar rockets lot's of times.
This guy is not going into space. This guy is getting as much publicity as possible for planning to go into space. He's showing the press impressive looking "test launches" using rockets well known both to work, and to be incapable of lifting a person into space.
"a 40% cut of the door" I think you're dreaming. The people I know in bands that play small venues get a fixed sum, typically on the same order as the gas money to get there. There are just too many bands who will happily play in exchange for being allowed up on the stage.
"three hours of work" And you get a lot of bookings if you never rehearse.
"I find it very difficult to find sympathy for bands complaining that they can't make a living playing music. I've got new for them...: The world doesn't owe you a living."
And why would more than one person bid? Or that person bid more than a dollar? Everyone else can just wait for the free copy. I guess you might bid if you didn't want to wait, but how much?
For that matter your understanding of the painting/print making market is totally wrong. He (or his gallery/agent/designee) makes a limited number of prints, and sells them. They also sell the original painting for more. If other people make prints, he can (and the gallery will) sue.
"Today we have so called brilliant Computer science graduates who know b-tree algorithms and recursive mathmatics but do not how to login to a unix terminal."
As opposed to graduates who think "how to login to a unix terminal." is Computer Science?
"What this says is 'Go ahead and pass gun control laws. We don't think you are protected, and will not stand up for you.'"
What this says is "Go ahead and pass gun control laws. Or don't. We don't think it's our business." The ACLUs charter is not to jump in anytime you think your rights are being infringed; only when they think you have sound legal footing for thinking so. While most people have a particular opinion on gun control, organizations need not, and should not if such a position is not part of their purpose.
Anyway, it was the latter part of your post that I really found interesting. "Arms" refers to "firearms"? I disagree. I think the founders meant to include all weapons. (The worst available at the time would be what, a good-sized cannon?) At the time even if some crazy got ahold of the worst weapon available he could have been easily dealt with by, well, a well regulated militia. I don't think the founders forsaw the posibility of this changing. Certainly possesion of that nice big cannon would have been essential for anyone trying to maintain the security of a free state.
THe ACLU goes wrong in not distinguishing "the people" from "The People"? I don't think so. Yes, the amendment refers to ordinary citizens. That's who makes up the militia. But if your going to complain they miss a nuance of punctuation, I'm going to have to call you on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" which you seem to interpret as meaning absolutely nothing. It's half the words in the amendment. They didn't put it in there cause they liked the way it sounded.
"The ACLU is interpreting the 2nd ammendment as a reason to curtail the right of individual citizens to own firearms" False. The ACLU interprets the second amentment as not preventing government regulation of arms.
"The NRA's stance is entirely opposite" Until they come out in favor of privately owned nukes their stance is not exactly opposite of the ACLUs, nor is their interpretation of the second amendment internally consistent.
"the expenditure of resources on either side to further their adgenda is to be expected." The expenditure of an organizations resources to further its agenda is indeed to be expected. It might even be seen as the clearest expression of what that agenda is. You may be anoyed that the ACLU has not expended enough resources opposing gun control, but as far as I can determine, they have expended exactly zero resources in support of gun control. They believe (and I think their argument is fairly cogent) that ownership of arms for purposes that are not military or law-enforcement related is not constitutionally garaunteed. Which does not mean it should be forbidden, but does mean that it's not their mission.
"Someone above remarked that the phrase 'under God' does not appear in the United State Constitution"
Yeah, but I knew they meant the Pledge. I was just being a smart-ass. In any case I don't think it's much of a strech to say requiring students to pledge alegiance to "one nation under God" is promoting religion. No one's arguing that it should be changed to "one nation, not under God because he doesn't exist". You'd be laughed at for sugesting that. So why isn't keeping "under God" similarly laughable?
"Freedom of speech and religion could be considered 'liberal causes'."
I guess. Sort of takes the supposed negative conotation out of the phrase though doen't it. But hell, if the Right wants to come out officially against Free Speech, I'm not going to stop them.
Speech by public school students, public employees, comercial speech. Not that I am arguing they should be exceptions, but note that in none of your examples is the exception justified based on the content of the speech. Now do a google search on "Confederate flag ACLU" and see what side they're on in your pulic school student example.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
Note the lack of any exceptions based on the content of the speech. Which is the point. And which is why the ACLU defends this right even when the content is clearly repugnant. If even NAMBLA can say (not do) whatever it wants, I don't need to fear for my right to say "Bush sucks".
"The ACLU is all against school prayer"
The ACLU has sued to ensure students are allowed to pray in school, as well as to ensure they are not required to.
"and for the removing of "under God" in the constitution."
I doubt that, as "under God" does not appear in the consitution Perhaps you should have spent less time praying in school?
There are more interpretations of the second amendment than yours. I think the page you linked gives a pretty clear explanation of the ACLUs interpretation. I'd be particularly interested in your resopnse to what I think is the strongest argument. So tell me: Do you argue for the unrestricted right to own nuclear weapons, or do you accept that the government should be able to regulate arms?
In practice, widgets do not have an infinite life, so you can sell replacement widgets, though this market will be of a fixed size (well, increasing with the widget-needing poulation, but let's assume that's pretty slow). Your company could still grow by expanding into gizmos. But let's assume you don't and your company is just going to stay in widgets, selling about the same number every year, at about the same efficiency, and not really growing. Does this make your stock worthless? Not if you're making a profit. Say for example you are making enough money in the ultra-stable widget market to pay out 1 dollar in dividends for every share of stock. Then I as an investor have to ask myself: "How much will I pay today in exchange for your paying me a dollar a year forever?" The answer is certainly not zero. This is the reasonable way to expect to make money in the stock market: Invest in solid companies that earn money in boring ways and give it to you. Trying to make money by buying stocks that you expect to become more valuable is less reasonable. It's a complicated game where you don't win unless someone else looses, and the vast majority of the pieces (investment dollars) are controlled by people who play it for a living and have extensive research staff (fund managers).
I would have if you'd asked. As would a dizzying array of easily accessible sources. I mean, you did find out the most basic information about what you were buying before you spent piles of money right? Sorry.
Not remotely. But excuse me if I laugh at the lot of you a bit. At its height Palms market cap was an order of magnitude bigger than that of 3Com. 3Com owned 90% of Palm. Unless you believed the rest of 3Com had a hugely negative value, buying Palm directly was not remotely rational.
I think it would clear things up if you re-read your questions, replacing the word "investors" with a phrase that means the same thing: "people who own the company".
So, do the people who run the company ever say "we don't care what the people who own the company want, we'll do what pleases us, not them." Sure, it happens all the time. Then they get fired.
"People have made devices which can continually run, however I believe the definition of such a device requires that it creates energy"
No, the definition of a "Perpetual Motion" machine is really not very subtle. It's a machine that keeps moving perpetually. And people have not made such devices, as they are impossible.
I suspect that assuring each other of what we suspect without any evidence is pretty pointless. Furthermore, I am suspicious of those who confidently state seemingly factual statements ("over 90%") without any evidence.
All that said, I would guess a disproportionate number of senetors, congressmen, presidents are lawyers, but no where near 90%. OTOH, having been a lawyer is probably better training for being a lawmaker that having been a plumber.
As for judges, you mean to tell me that Federal judgeships overwhelmingly go to people who have graduated law school?!? It's discrimination I say! A conspiracy!!
Slashdot Mirror
My only problem with "System Administrator" is it really doesn't tell you anything more that "Something to do with computers".
Actually, my first real job was for a big government contractor; an IT body shop basically. They didn't want to narrow down what slot they could stick people in, so they had a whole laundry-list of titles carefully crafted to mean nothing but your pay scale. When I left that job I was a (I kid you not)
"Hardware/Software Specialist"
Windows may have lousy tech support. It may have lousy help. It may have lousy manuals. I wouldn't know. I've never used or needed any of them to do what I needed to on Windows. Not even the first time. I hate MS marketing practices as much as the next guy, but their ease of use is top notch. Linux will be ready for the masses when new users can be told NOT to RTFM.
"every new version of *every* piece of software Microsoft releases from the OS to the browser scrambles the locations of the menus and/or options"
I think maybe you're exagerating a little. "Every?" I can think of one (Visual Studio 6 -> 7). And it really pissed me off, because it's such an exception. Everything else tends to keep menus consistent (even when they desperately need improvement)
Anyway, Linux has its strengths, but you seem to be arguing that Linux usability and interface consistency are comparable to that of Windows. In which case I want some of what you're smoking.
But he does not attempt it. He talks about attempting it. He shows off impressive looking "capsules" that are clearly far to heavy to be launched. He stages, and trumpets the success of, "test launches" using comercially available rocket engines known to A) work, and B) be incapable of lofting a man into space.
He's not trying to get launched into space. He's trying to get publicity, and to have everyone think he has courage. How many articles have there been saying how brave this guy is? I can't count them. How many high has he been lifted by a rocket so far? Not one inch.
He's a propagandist and a poser.
Sadly, I don't think he will ever earn the darwin award. He's after the publicity of "planning" to launch into space. He's clearly smart enough to not try more than talking about it.
No, the parents point is that there was no question of whether it would work, others have "tested" similar rockets lot's of times.
This guy is not going into space. This guy is getting as much publicity as possible for planning to go into space. He's showing the press impressive looking "test launches" using rockets well known both to work, and to be incapable of lifting a person into space.
"a 40% cut of the door"
I think you're dreaming. The people I know in bands that play small venues get a fixed sum, typically on the same order as the gas money to get there. There are just too many bands who will happily play in exchange for being allowed up on the stage.
"three hours of work"
And you get a lot of bookings if you never rehearse.
"I find it very difficult to find sympathy for bands complaining that they can't make a living playing music. I've got new for them...: The world doesn't owe you a living."
Now here I am in complete agreement.
And why would more than one person bid? Or that person bid more than a dollar? Everyone else can just wait for the free copy. I guess you might bid if you didn't want to wait, but how much?
For that matter your understanding of the painting/print making market is totally wrong. He (or his gallery/agent/designee) makes a limited number of prints, and sells them. They also sell the original painting for more. If other people make prints, he can (and the gallery will) sue.
"Today we have so called brilliant Computer science graduates who know b-tree algorithms and recursive mathmatics but do not how to login to a unix terminal."
As opposed to graduates who think "how to login to a unix terminal." is Computer Science?
"What this says is 'Go ahead and pass gun control laws. We don't think you are protected, and will not stand up for you.'"
What this says is "Go ahead and pass gun control laws. Or don't. We don't think it's our business." The ACLUs charter is not to jump in anytime you think your rights are being infringed; only when they think you have sound legal footing for thinking so. While most people have a particular opinion on gun control, organizations need not, and should not if such a position is not part of their purpose.
Anyway, it was the latter part of your post that I really found interesting. "Arms" refers to "firearms"? I disagree. I think the founders meant to include all weapons. (The worst available at the time would be what, a good-sized cannon?) At the time even if some crazy got ahold of the worst weapon available he could have been easily dealt with by, well, a well regulated militia. I don't think the founders forsaw the posibility of this changing. Certainly possesion of that nice big cannon would have been essential for anyone trying to maintain the security of a free state.
THe ACLU goes wrong in not distinguishing "the people" from "The People"? I don't think so. Yes, the amendment refers to ordinary citizens. That's who makes up the militia. But if your going to complain they miss a nuance of punctuation, I'm going to have to call you on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" which you seem to interpret as meaning absolutely nothing. It's half the words in the amendment. They didn't put it in there cause they liked the way it sounded.
"In God we trust" has become meaningless. No one will mind if we take it out then right?
It's an interesting position, but bullshit.
"The ACLU is interpreting the 2nd ammendment as a reason to curtail the right of individual citizens to own firearms"
False. The ACLU interprets the second amentment as not preventing government regulation of arms.
"The NRA's stance is entirely opposite"
Until they come out in favor of privately owned nukes their stance is not exactly opposite of the ACLUs, nor is their interpretation of the second amendment internally consistent.
"the expenditure of resources on either side to further their adgenda is to be expected."
The expenditure of an organizations resources to further its agenda is indeed to be expected. It might even be seen as the clearest expression of what that agenda is. You may be anoyed that the ACLU has not expended enough resources opposing gun control, but as far as I can determine, they have expended exactly zero resources in support of gun control. They believe (and I think their argument is fairly cogent) that ownership of arms for purposes that are not military or law-enforcement related is not constitutionally garaunteed. Which does not mean it should be forbidden, but does mean that it's not their mission.
"Someone above remarked that the phrase 'under God' does not appear in the United State Constitution"
Yeah, but I knew they meant the Pledge. I was just being a smart-ass. In any case I don't think it's much of a strech to say requiring students to pledge alegiance to "one nation under God" is promoting religion. No one's arguing that it should be changed to "one nation, not under God because he doesn't exist". You'd be laughed at for sugesting that. So why isn't keeping "under God" similarly laughable?
"Freedom of speech and religion could be considered 'liberal causes'."
I guess. Sort of takes the supposed negative conotation out of the phrase though doen't it. But hell, if the Right wants to come out officially against Free Speech, I'm not going to stop them.
Speech by public school students, public employees, comercial speech. Not that I am arguing they should be exceptions, but note that in none of your examples is the exception justified based on the content of the speech. Now do a google search on "Confederate flag ACLU" and see what side they're on in your pulic school student example.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
Note the lack of any exceptions based on the content of the speech. Which is the point. And which is why the ACLU defends this right even when the content is clearly repugnant. If even NAMBLA can say (not do) whatever it wants, I don't need to fear for my right to say "Bush sucks".
"The ACLU is all against school prayer"
The ACLU has sued to ensure students are allowed to pray in school, as well as to ensure they are not required to.
"and for the removing of "under God" in the constitution."
I doubt that, as "under God" does not appear in the consitution
Perhaps you should have spent less time praying in school?
There are more interpretations of the second amendment than yours. I think the page you linked gives a pretty clear explanation of the ACLUs interpretation. I'd be particularly interested in your resopnse to what I think is the strongest argument. So tell me:
Do you argue for the unrestricted right to own nuclear weapons, or do you accept that the government should be able to regulate arms?
In practice, widgets do not have an infinite life, so you can sell replacement widgets, though this market will be of a fixed size (well, increasing with the widget-needing poulation, but let's assume that's pretty slow). Your company could still grow by expanding into gizmos. But let's assume you don't and your company is just going to stay in widgets, selling about the same number every year, at about the same efficiency, and not really growing. Does this make your stock worthless? Not if you're making a profit. Say for example you are making enough money in the ultra-stable widget market to pay out 1 dollar in dividends for every share of stock. Then I as an investor have to ask myself: "How much will I pay today in exchange for your paying me a dollar a year forever?" The answer is certainly not zero.
This is the reasonable way to expect to make money in the stock market: Invest in solid companies that earn money in boring ways and give it to you.
Trying to make money by buying stocks that you expect to become more valuable is less reasonable. It's a complicated game where you don't win unless someone else looses, and the vast majority of the pieces (investment dollars) are controlled by people who play it for a living and have extensive research staff (fund managers).
Stockholders in company == owners of company
The officers of the company can be sued if they don't do what the owners want.
I would have if you'd asked. As would a dizzying array of easily accessible sources. I mean, you did find out the most basic information about what you were buying before you spent piles of money right?
Sorry.
"Am I the only one who paid $85 for Palm stock"
Not remotely. But excuse me if I laugh at the lot of you a bit. At its height Palms market cap was an order of magnitude bigger than that of 3Com. 3Com owned 90% of Palm. Unless you believed the rest of 3Com had a hugely negative value, buying Palm directly was not remotely rational.
I think it would clear things up if you re-read your questions, replacing the word "investors" with a phrase that means the same thing: "people who own the company".
So, do the people who run the company ever say "we don't care what the people who own the company want, we'll do what pleases us, not them." Sure, it happens all the time. Then they get fired.
"People have made devices which can continually run, however I believe the definition of such a device requires that it creates energy"
No, the definition of a "Perpetual Motion" machine is really not very subtle. It's a machine that keeps moving perpetually. And people have not made such devices, as they are impossible.
I suspect that assuring each other of what we suspect without any evidence is pretty pointless. Furthermore, I am suspicious of those who confidently state seemingly factual statements ("over 90%") without any evidence.
All that said, I would guess a disproportionate number of senetors, congressmen, presidents are lawyers, but no where near 90%. OTOH, having been a lawyer is probably better training for being a lawmaker that having been a plumber.
As for judges, you mean to tell me that Federal judgeships overwhelmingly go to people who have graduated law school?!? It's discrimination I say! A conspiracy!!