New England Law of Driving: The rudeness and stupidity of drivers in New England is inversely proportional to your distance from Boston.
Note that this formula has the interesting property that as you approach Boston rudeness and stupidity rises first to infinity, and then to undefined territory.
Keep the hero a wimp, make the levels as ~open~ as can be with multiple entrances and no forced way of finishing a level or pass an obstacle (see the latest Tomb Raider or Prince of Perversia installments for how NOT to do it), don't include a sidekick, especially if that sidekick is supposed to save you everytime you might have died (hell.. ALLOW for failure. you know, the old "YOU'RE DEAD, GAME OVER" concept that seems to be vanishing out of most games lately), and you'll have a great game on your hands.
In short, you'll have Nethack.
Actually, I love the first 2 Thief games: as one review put it, Thief was one of the few games where standing still watching and listening for your opponents was exciting. And if it was too easy to go around conking guards on the head, you could always have a nice challenge by leaving all the guards awake and walking around while you went and grabbed all the loot.
Wow. How the heck did this get a +4 Insightful when it simply isn't true?
Some specific examples where private companies are demonstrably at best no better and potentially much much worse: 1. Firefighting, policing, and other emergency services. 2. Health care 3. Water and sewer systems. Other utilities such as electricity also often do really well under government control. 4. Health inspections of food products 5. Military duty (such as infantry patrols in Iraq) 6. public transit systems (consider 19th century railroads in the US as a prime example) 7. Natural resources management
Of course, the other option that I took was to select my residence primarily for having a short commute. Mine is about 5 minutes by car, or 20 minutes by foot, and it's an hour or so every day of my life that would otherwise stuck in traffic. I'd recommend that approach to anyone.
Hey, what about kicking sinks, or tossing in rings to identify them, or having fun with the dishwasher? (Ok, that's Nethack, not rogue, but the point remains) Diablo, while enjoyable, doesn't have that kind of depth, or the very fascinating challenge of trying to figure out what the heck is going on.
Quite the opposite: Giving men access to the same ability to prevent pregnancy as a woman has is actually a very good thing.
Imagine this scenario if you will: 1. Woman tells man she's on the pill. 2. Man has sex with her without a condom or other method of birth control, because the woman told him she was on the pill. 3. Woman was lying, gets pregnant, and chooses to carry the baby to term. 4. Man is stuck with massive child-support bills, even though the pregnancy is almost entirely the woman's decision.
If gents have access to drugs like this, steps 3 and 4 are much less likely to happen, which is better for men.
Now try and have the same understanding if instead of your college education in a numerically-oriented field (e.g. physics, CS, math, and so forth) you're at about the level of education you had at around 9th grade. There are a lot of adults with roughly that level of education running around, and a lot of them are potential subprime borrowers.
I'm not saying the borrowers were saints, but brokers definitely took advantage of their ignorance in general and specifically about mortgages.
Unfortunately, that's difficult to pull off, because most of what they did was completely legal, and there's a constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws (for good reason).
That is one of the most fantastic explanations ever offered, and by an AC no less.
A more in-depth explanation for those who want more than 2 words: 1. A mortgage broker knows more about mortgages than your typical homeowner, and uses that advantage to sell a bad deal to said homeowner. The reasons it's a bad deal are buried in the fine print that would take a real-estate attorney to sort out (which a typical sub-prime borrower couldn't afford). The mortgage broker promptly collects the commission. 2. The mortgage company that the broker works for builds a security that nobody really understands that effectively hides the bad loan that the broker gave out. They work with the security rating agencies to make sure it has a good rating even if it shouldn't. Once someone buys the security, the mortgage company has its profits and no risks.
In other words, every step of the way the mortgage brokerage has more information than any other party, and uses that to screw over borrowers and investors.
I've argued the issue of the CRA on many occasions, but I guess I have to do it one more time. For starters, I refer you to an earlier Slashdot discussion on exactly why the CRA had very little if not nothing to do with it.
The short version: The vast majority of bad loans originated from brokers (e.g. DiTech, Countrywide, Ameriquest) who weren't covered by the CRA. Banks who were under the CRA actually did considerably better than other financial companies. Furthermore, CRA borrowers had to meet identical loan standards as anyone else.
The reasons that various groups have blamed the CRA has a lot to do with hating that regulation since at least 1990 or so, and very little to do with reality.
Here I was thinking this article was along the lines of: 1. Take two random companies that conceivably could produce something useful if they merged. 2. Buy them using VC. 3. Merge them. 4. Start a PR campaign about how the merged company could threaten IBM and MS. 5. Sell out the merged companies to whichever giant makes the bigger offer. Obviously wait until the offers are more than you paid in step 2. 6. Profit!
To answer your question, yes, many teachers are paid that poorly. It varies a great deal though: in most states teacher salaries are controlled by local school boards. Local school boards in wealthy suburbs can often pay a lot more than poorer districts in inner-city or rural areas, so (no real surprise here) they tend to attract more experienced and better teachers.
In the case of Bolivia we have: A constitution that forms the highest law of the land, regular contested elections, a 3-branch government (executive, legislature, judiciary), and regional divisions that have some degree of autonomy. Is this sounding like a familiar political system?
No, we haven't constrained ourselves to Latin America, but we've done that sort of overthrowing and bullying to a majority of Latin American governments: Argentina, Cuba, Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatamala, Haiti, Hondurus, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, and Venezuela (including very recently if you believe Hugo Chavez) have all at one point or another had military coups with US involvement.
There's reason to think this may be different: 1. Everyone already knows President Evo Morales is a communist. He's made no secret of that.
2. The various left-wing Latin American governments have been building efforts to prevent precisely that sort of pillaging or overthrow. That bloc includes regional powerhouse Brazil.
3. The Cold War is over, so being a communist is not grounds for immediate US intervention.
4. The US regime with a tendency to interfere in other countries in support of corporate interests has recently been removed from power.
I also hope that money goes towards improving their infrastructure and fostering internal business instead of some bullshit palace for some bullshit dictator.
President Evo Morales of Bolivia is many things, but "bullshit dictator" he is not. He was democratically elected in 2005, and won a recall election in 2008 by a two-thirds majority. The Bolivian government has been a democracy since the 1980's.
Slashdot Mirror
They're going to have to go up against Google if they go for a lunar base.
Wanna have medicinal pot easily? Move to CA. Things like that.
Unless the DEA decides to go after you. This is why not everything should be a federal offense.
New England Law of Driving: The rudeness and stupidity of drivers in New England is inversely proportional to your distance from Boston.
Note that this formula has the interesting property that as you approach Boston rudeness and stupidity rises first to infinity, and then to undefined territory.
Given how fast the rovers travel, Opportunity could be on the scene in late 2157
... so it too can get caught in the same pile of sand.
Keep the hero a wimp, make the levels as ~open~ as can be with multiple entrances and no forced way of finishing a level or pass an obstacle (see the latest Tomb Raider or Prince of Perversia installments for how NOT to do it), don't include a sidekick, especially if that sidekick is supposed to save you everytime you might have died (hell.. ALLOW for failure. you know, the old "YOU'RE DEAD, GAME OVER" concept that seems to be vanishing out of most games lately), and you'll have a great game on your hands.
In short, you'll have Nethack.
Actually, I love the first 2 Thief games: as one review put it, Thief was one of the few games where standing still watching and listening for your opponents was exciting. And if it was too easy to go around conking guards on the head, you could always have a nice challenge by leaving all the guards awake and walking around while you went and grabbed all the loot.
Private companies are always better.
Wow. How the heck did this get a +4 Insightful when it simply isn't true?
Some specific examples where private companies are demonstrably at best no better and potentially much much worse:
1. Firefighting, policing, and other emergency services.
2. Health care
3. Water and sewer systems. Other utilities such as electricity also often do really well under government control.
4. Health inspections of food products
5. Military duty (such as infantry patrols in Iraq)
6. public transit systems (consider 19th century railroads in the US as a prime example)
7. Natural resources management
Of course, the other option that I took was to select my residence primarily for having a short commute. Mine is about 5 minutes by car, or 20 minutes by foot, and it's an hour or so every day of my life that would otherwise stuck in traffic. I'd recommend that approach to anyone.
What about the game story of "Go rescue the princess who has been captured by King Koopa?" That one was pretty good too.
I don't understand, their reality distortion field has got to be worth millions in it's own right.
Unfortunately, that's patented by Steve Jobs, so it's unusable without paying massive amounts of cash to Apple.
There is nothing bad at throwing out kitchen sink
Hey, what about kicking sinks, or tossing in rings to identify them, or having fun with the dishwasher? (Ok, that's Nethack, not rogue, but the point remains) Diablo, while enjoyable, doesn't have that kind of depth, or the very fascinating challenge of trying to figure out what the heck is going on.
Quite the opposite: Giving men access to the same ability to prevent pregnancy as a woman has is actually a very good thing.
Imagine this scenario if you will:
1. Woman tells man she's on the pill.
2. Man has sex with her without a condom or other method of birth control, because the woman told him she was on the pill.
3. Woman was lying, gets pregnant, and chooses to carry the baby to term.
4. Man is stuck with massive child-support bills, even though the pregnancy is almost entirely the woman's decision.
If gents have access to drugs like this, steps 3 and 4 are much less likely to happen, which is better for men.
My opinion is easily summed up by this quote:
If man were meant to be naked he would have been born that way.
-Oscar Wilde
Now try and have the same understanding if instead of your college education in a numerically-oriented field (e.g. physics, CS, math, and so forth) you're at about the level of education you had at around 9th grade. There are a lot of adults with roughly that level of education running around, and a lot of them are potential subprime borrowers.
I'm not saying the borrowers were saints, but brokers definitely took advantage of their ignorance in general and specifically about mortgages.
Unfortunately, that's difficult to pull off, because most of what they did was completely legal, and there's a constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws (for good reason).
Some citations for those interested:
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/news/news.021809.php
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/2000/1100.htm
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls564.htm
All are very clear that the CRA had little to nothing to do with the subprime mortgage foreclosures.
That is one of the most fantastic explanations ever offered, and by an AC no less.
A more in-depth explanation for those who want more than 2 words:
1. A mortgage broker knows more about mortgages than your typical homeowner, and uses that advantage to sell a bad deal to said homeowner. The reasons it's a bad deal are buried in the fine print that would take a real-estate attorney to sort out (which a typical sub-prime borrower couldn't afford). The mortgage broker promptly collects the commission.
2. The mortgage company that the broker works for builds a security that nobody really understands that effectively hides the bad loan that the broker gave out. They work with the security rating agencies to make sure it has a good rating even if it shouldn't. Once someone buys the security, the mortgage company has its profits and no risks.
In other words, every step of the way the mortgage brokerage has more information than any other party, and uses that to screw over borrowers and investors.
I've argued the issue of the CRA on many occasions, but I guess I have to do it one more time. For starters, I refer you to an earlier Slashdot discussion on exactly why the CRA had very little if not nothing to do with it.
The short version: The vast majority of bad loans originated from brokers (e.g. DiTech, Countrywide, Ameriquest) who weren't covered by the CRA. Banks who were under the CRA actually did considerably better than other financial companies. Furthermore, CRA borrowers had to meet identical loan standards as anyone else.
The reasons that various groups have blamed the CRA has a lot to do with hating that regulation since at least 1990 or so, and very little to do with reality.
We're just going to keep milking this one, aren't we?
Here I was thinking this article was along the lines of:
1. Take two random companies that conceivably could produce something useful if they merged.
2. Buy them using VC.
3. Merge them.
4. Start a PR campaign about how the merged company could threaten IBM and MS.
5. Sell out the merged companies to whichever giant makes the bigger offer. Obviously wait until the offers are more than you paid in step 2.
6. Profit!
To answer your question, yes, many teachers are paid that poorly. It varies a great deal though: in most states teacher salaries are controlled by local school boards. Local school boards in wealthy suburbs can often pay a lot more than poorer districts in inner-city or rural areas, so (no real surprise here) they tend to attract more experienced and better teachers.
The entire article can be summarized as follows:
"Buy wireless equipment now! Everyone else is doing it!"
In the case of Bolivia we have: A constitution that forms the highest law of the land, regular contested elections, a 3-branch government (executive, legislature, judiciary), and regional divisions that have some degree of autonomy. Is this sounding like a familiar political system?
No, we haven't constrained ourselves to Latin America, but we've done that sort of overthrowing and bullying to a majority of Latin American governments: Argentina, Cuba, Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatamala, Haiti, Hondurus, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, and Venezuela (including very recently if you believe Hugo Chavez) have all at one point or another had military coups with US involvement.
There's reason to think this may be different:
1. Everyone already knows President Evo Morales is a communist. He's made no secret of that.
2. The various left-wing Latin American governments have been building efforts to prevent precisely that sort of pillaging or overthrow. That bloc includes regional powerhouse Brazil.
3. The Cold War is over, so being a communist is not grounds for immediate US intervention.
4. The US regime with a tendency to interfere in other countries in support of corporate interests has recently been removed from power.
I also hope that money goes towards improving their infrastructure and fostering internal business instead of some bullshit palace for some bullshit dictator.
President Evo Morales of Bolivia is many things, but "bullshit dictator" he is not. He was democratically elected in 2005, and won a recall election in 2008 by a two-thirds majority. The Bolivian government has been a democracy since the 1980's.