It's more of a "be a bad person your whole life and risk coming back the next life as a bug" sort of arrangement.
It's not like that either. Karma is a notion that effects of intentions do not vanish. Literally translated "karma" means intent. It doesn't mean "what's coming to you". The "what's coming to you" part is called karma vipaka. (the result of karma, or karmic "retribution" where retribution is not to be understood in the strictly moralistic sense)
What's unknowable about karma and its results is the specifics. Be a bad person and come back as a bug? We don't know. You can come back as a rich person. You can be a good person and come back as a bug. The specifics are not possible to calculate and/or establish.
What is generally said is that positive mindstream generally flows into positive mindstream. (Not always...no guarantees). So if you're a good person you may become a good bug with a good bug life -- positive experience. You donate lots and help lots of people and you might be reborn as a poor leper who is very happy and satisfied with life. It's not a tit for tat system as you say. No matter how absurdly good your karma is, you can be reborn in hell realm -- it's just that your life won't be that bad there. But this is uncertain.
There is an element of uncertainty in karma and karmic result/retribution. Besides the fact that specifics are unknowable, the general direction is also uncertain. Why? Because it's impossible to establish it. That's why.
The only thing we can be sure about is that the results of actions do not vanish into nothingness. But what exactly happens? Even Buddhas do not know.
Smug, self-satisfied vegans don't have nearly the lock on good karma they think they do.
That can be. But be careful tossing words around. What is the alternative to being self-satisfied? Is being self-dissatisfied more good? I don't think so. Is being smug that bad? Sure, it rubs your ego the wrong way. Is everything that rubs you the wrong way bad?
What you say seems kind of true on the surface, but under deep investigation it is not at all obvious.
Now, I'm not saying let's all be smug and self-satisfied. I'm just saying your criticism is basically hot air that you cannot support with anything other than your personal feelings (certainly not with reason or logic). Just be aware of that and it will be OK. That's what I think.:)
So, you believe experimentalists will come up with an experiment that proves that the Universe did or did not come from nothing? And that the only thing that stops us from performing such an experiment right now is lack of equipment/resources?
You really should learn to have a work ethic - you'll go much farther than if you're dependent on your job always pleasing or amusing you.
Don't you get it? Where are you going? Going farther? What's the destination? To be happy and amused? To suffer? Something in between?
You can take your work ethic and shove it up your ass.:) No offense. You can do great work without any ethic -- simply because you love it. If it requires ethic in order to be done, then it's unnatural and should be avoided.
What you need to do is think about the purpose of what you're doing. Ethic always serves something higher than itself. What is it? Find it. If you can find it, then ethic becomes an unnecessary artifice.
I bet you suck ass. It's one thing to be employable and be respected and personable and have a decent resume. It's another thing to be good at what you do. If you don't act like an ass, and if you do not display willful ignorance, you can remain easily employable in the IT field. Heck, having a person like you might even be useful at times. But mostly a dude like you is a train on team spirit. Most likely you lower morale, because it's very obvious you don't like what you do, so your "who gives a damn" attitude carries across and is felt very clearly by people who do give a damn.
So, first, I don't think you're good at it. Second, even if you are, you are a downer to people who care. You are basically someone who pisses in the pool. I'm glad it makes your life better, but I'm not glad it necessarily comes at the expense of how other people feel, because there is just no way in hell you can hide your attitude (the fact that you don't love what you do), and that will most definitely impact those who do love it. The result is mediocrity and depression for all concerned. Yes, you have some spare change, but you are not truly fulfilled in life. You're not doing what you love. You're thinking about it. You can spend a few hours when you're not dead tired after work on what you love. The job is a necessary evil for you. It's a life of misery for you and for others around you, thanks to you.
Now, I'm not going to go so far as to suggest everyone like you should quit or be fired. I have some compassion. But you should understand that your decision not to follow your love has negative consequences for all concerned. Don't kid yourself thinking that it has no negative consequences.
The thing is that there is no such thing as a mere "business" decision. All decisions are life decisions. When you decide what job to do, you are not making merely a business decision. You are making a choice on how to spend the majority of your waking prime time hours throughout your whole f*cking life.
The day has 24 hours.
You sleep 7 (average healthy)
You eat, shit, sneeze, commute, scratch yourself, take shower, get a haircut, do laundry and do other meaningless and joyless maintenance tasks for what? -- probably another 4-5 hours a day, easy. Lunch alone is one hour. Commute? If you are lucky, 20 minutes. If not -- 3 hours one way. I'm averaging it out.
So 24 - 7 - 5 = 12 hours of functional, non-maintenance waking. Out of those 12 you spend 7 working (I assume your employer pays for 1 hour lunch, like they should, so it's included into your 8 hour work day).
7/12*100 = 58%
That's most of your life. If you take into account that you get tired as you work, and that for the remaining hours you cannot be as active as you were at work, then that percentage becomes something like 90% of quality prime time is spent at work.
So it's a life decision first and foremost. Business is there to serve and support life. Life is not there to serve and support business!
Most people who don't love programming claim they're good at it. That's not new. I've yet to see a person who was good at it and didn't like it. Of course I've heard many people claim they're good at it, but that's another matter.
Money is irrelevant. Money is only relevant when you love 2 things more or less equally and there is a large difference in income between them.
If you hate plumbing and you get into plumbing to make money...yea, you'll be a shit plumber who will make his own life miserable and lives around them as well! And in the end probably get a bum rep and never get another plumbing contract.
Do what you love. It's the only thing that makes sense. The same is true after you're hired. You gotta do what you love regardless of what management tells you to do, because following orders against your nature won't help neither you nor your management.
There is a cool sci-fi book where a group of people do exactly that -- use external randomizer -- for the exact same reasons! I believe they are called "harlequins" in the book.
I agree. Linux is still good. But suddenly Solaris becomes a lot more interesting. Who is to say that Solaris is not going to adapt the bazaar development model? Don't they keep at least some of Solaris code in Mercurial VCS which is designed for decentralized development?
That's a fine review from a user's point of view. If I understand correctly, most people are interested in an IT perspective on Vista. That means they are mostly discussing how Vista does or does not make it easier to maintain mass deployments on an enterprise scale.
That's not to take away from what you're saying. It's just that what you're saying is largely irrelevant to most people here.:) Windows ME had some features that improved the end-user feel/experience too. But in the end it didn't take off.
I think this is indeed amazing. It blows my mind that perhaps Linux will stop being "it" for many people for whom it currently "is it" or "that's where it's at". To think that Solaris, from the point of view of software freedom, not only overcome FreeBSD, but also even Linux, it's pretty mind blowing to me.
What's next? Windows Vista GPL'ed? I doubt anyone cares about any technical achievements in Vista's kernel, but on a social plane, such an event would be very interesting.
Shouldn't an obviously unethical plan such as this have been stopped at some point in this chain? Shouldn't that boss figure have some kind of conscience which should have stopped him from doing this?
Me and you would like to think they "should". But reality is that they are protected behind the shield of that pseudo-person. Even though ethical mistakes belong to individuals making them, when it comes time to present your complaints, you have to address them to Microsoft, the pseudo-entity and not to a particular person.
The reason those pseudo-entities are so dangerous is that they make people faceless when they act on behalf of the company.
And that was actually the whole point. The point was to limit damages to the real person by creating this fictitious person who could accept responsibility instead of real people. This is perhaps OK when the damages are purely monetary (like unpaid debts), but when the damage is done to our culture, I like to think that corporation pseudo-person should be powerless to protect the individuals. And yet, in practice that's exactly what happens unless the problem reaches scandalous proportions, a la Enron, and then they punish some figure-head for it instead of putting the whole board of directors and all of the C citizens into jail, like it should be done.
if the Gates foundation isn't making money off of the evil corporations, someone will.
Translation: if I don't mug this guy, someone else will...so why don't I be the one to mug him, cause at least, unlike other muggers, I will use that money to cure malaria, etc...
Nonsense. We don't need that kind of charity. I'd prefer there be no extra-curricular charity activity at all, as long as the main curriculum was 100% upright. It's what you do 9 to 5 that matters the most, and not what you do in the evening. If you rape and pillage 9 to 5, and come 6pm you start donating your time at a soup kitchen...guess what that is?
There is no point in simply judging, be the target of such judgment the boss, or ourselves. We have to examine the entire situation and judge the situation in a holistic way, rather than judge the segments of that situation, such as discrete individuals (which in truth are not really discrete).
I notice that most "failed promises" occur simply due to an unrealistic expectation and not due to any fault or flaw in the employee. Many employees want to please their boss, so much so, that they will instinctively, and without thinking, give project estimates that they believe the boss would like to hear, rather than a realistic project estimate. Also, giving a longer and truer-to-life estimate, besides not pleasing your boss, has the ability to create self-doubt (like...if I say it will take 2 months, does that mean I am dumb? Would a smarter person be able to do it in 1 month? I can't be seen as dumb. I must be seen as smart at all costs...1 month it is...). Estimates (or worse -- deadlines) are always affected by real causes, conditions and unknowns, which simply cannot be eliminated. Even a very smart person is going to be controlled and framed by those factors to a large degree. I think that one's own intelligence and ability is only about 35% of the equation, unless the conditions are absolutely ideal. If the conditions are ideal, then individual genius and experience can probably make a 20x performance difference sometimes between the best and the worst worker. But truth is, almost none of us work in ideal conditions. And those people who can demonstrate 20 times the performance of the worst worker in ideal conditions are statistical outliers. And you can't build your business model or project estimates on any kind of statistical outliers, unless you're an idiot or an egomaniac.
Instead of blaming bosses or employees, let's reevaluate our culture that is based on fear, anxiety and 100% unreasonable expectations that have no grounds in reality.
That said, bosses get paid far more than employees (and do far less, unless you count sitting in meetings and writing reports as "work"; I admit time spent coordinating real work is real boss-work, but bosses generally do not need to coordinate that much, if at all). And as long as that's the case, we absolutely have to demand more ethical and moral uprightness from bosses than from those they manage. When bosses start to get paid equivalent salaries to those they purport to manage, and when bosses start to have demonstrable, non-bullshit, personal deliverables (and no, a report or projected presentation doesn't count, unless you really have to research something in a way that taxes a unique skill in order to compose that report -- reporting what your "charges" did during the week does not tax any unique skill, so that is what I call bullshit deliverable), then sure, let's spread the responsibility evenly. But as long as the power and compensation are not evenly spread out, neither should personal moral responsibility and accountability be evenly spread out.
And finally, if you do want to think constructively about this, rather than pointing the blame finger at anyone, INCLUDING yourself, you have to examine the situation as a whole, with all of the situational social and psycho dynamics just as they appear to you before and after strong and sustained critical analysis.
I am of the opinion that in our current culture we are setup for failure. No matter how good you are, you will either crack, or burn out, and most definitely you will fail to live up to expectations (and then you can either lie about it -- which is what most seem to do -- or be honest about one's own limitations -- that's the balls of steel high road that is unfortunately almost never rewarded or understood by management).
We are human beings. We will never be perfect. In fact, we shouldn't even strive for perfection. Instead we should live content and happy lives and strive for doing a good or at least a decent job, while enjoying or, if possible, loving that job. Then, if perfection comes as a result of that, that's icing on the cake. But it's totally retarded to base our entire social and business culture on an expectation of perfection.
I agree that it's always good to keep our eyes open. Applets might have had problems in the past, but since then Java has not stood still.
The advantage of an applet is that it's more cross-platform for what it can do (I know that "hello world" in Javascript is very cross-platform, but who cares about that shallow level of compatibility?). Now with the new license Java will be 100% friendly to all environments without exceptions (including all open source OSes).
I think you have a point. Yet Javascript is also moving forward, and considering you get it for no-perceived-additional-download-cost, it's pretty good.
It doesn't matter if Best Buy pays for the results. Who cares if someone spends the hours or doesn't? You got results, you got paid. You, as Best Buy, are willing to pay for some amount of results. How these results get accomplished is not really your concern as long as the consumer experience is not hurt in the process. If consumers are happy and the results they want are accomplished, then it really doesn't matter who did what when, and in fact, it's one less thing you need to manage.
Not all jobs are as you describe, but I agree with you in that at a job there is a chance of being appreciated. In high school there is simply no chance at all to be appreciated.
Unfortunately many jobs are now also turning into a mildly better version of our piss poor high school system.
I did my research this election, and I found several alternative party or independent candidates who had very good ideas. I also found quite a few who were plainly kooks. I told people about the candidates that I like as well as the other alternative ones. Most people's reactions were, "but they have no chance of winning. You are throwing away your vote."
Your friends were right, actually. Our voting system is broken. Please read about a better voting system here: http://www.approvalvoting.org/ If we had an approval voting system, then there'd be no reason not to vote for all those candidates that you approve of, without feeling that you are throwing away your vote.
I'll forgo modding to post this. It's not a shame, but rather, our voting system is broken.
Voting for the guy you truly like does INDEED work to put the guy you hate the most into office, with our CURRENT voting system. But it doesn't have to be that way!
A) Reducing emissions doesn't mean an overall reduction in green house gasses - it just means a reduction in the rate of increase. So we're still increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses, just at a slower rate.
That's only true if greenhouse gasses are never consumed by anything.
If they are consumed by certain living organisms (can you think of any?), and the rate of output is less than the rate of consumption, then the level of those gasses will decline.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like that either. Karma is a notion that effects of intentions do not vanish. Literally translated "karma" means intent. It doesn't mean "what's coming to you". The "what's coming to you" part is called karma vipaka. (the result of karma, or karmic "retribution" where retribution is not to be understood in the strictly moralistic sense)
What's unknowable about karma and its results is the specifics. Be a bad person and come back as a bug? We don't know. You can come back as a rich person. You can be a good person and come back as a bug. The specifics are not possible to calculate and/or establish.
What is generally said is that positive mindstream generally flows into positive mindstream. (Not always...no guarantees). So if you're a good person you may become a good bug with a good bug life -- positive experience. You donate lots and help lots of people and you might be reborn as a poor leper who is very happy and satisfied with life. It's not a tit for tat system as you say. No matter how absurdly good your karma is, you can be reborn in hell realm -- it's just that your life won't be that bad there. But this is uncertain.
There is an element of uncertainty in karma and karmic result/retribution. Besides the fact that specifics are unknowable, the general direction is also uncertain. Why? Because it's impossible to establish it. That's why.
The only thing we can be sure about is that the results of actions do not vanish into nothingness. But what exactly happens? Even Buddhas do not know.
That can be. But be careful tossing words around. What is the alternative to being self-satisfied? Is being self-dissatisfied more good? I don't think so. Is being smug that bad? Sure, it rubs your ego the wrong way. Is everything that rubs you the wrong way bad?
What you say seems kind of true on the surface, but under deep investigation it is not at all obvious.
Now, I'm not saying let's all be smug and self-satisfied. I'm just saying your criticism is basically hot air that you cannot support with anything other than your personal feelings (certainly not with reason or logic). Just be aware of that and it will be OK. That's what I think.
So, you believe experimentalists will come up with an experiment that proves that the Universe did or did not come from nothing? And that the only thing that stops us from performing such an experiment right now is lack of equipment/resources?
Don't you get it? Where are you going? Going farther? What's the destination? To be happy and amused? To suffer? Something in between?
You can take your work ethic and shove it up your ass.
What you need to do is think about the purpose of what you're doing. Ethic always serves something higher than itself. What is it? Find it. If you can find it, then ethic becomes an unnecessary artifice.
I call bullshit.
I bet you suck ass. It's one thing to be employable and be respected and personable and have a decent resume. It's another thing to be good at what you do. If you don't act like an ass, and if you do not display willful ignorance, you can remain easily employable in the IT field. Heck, having a person like you might even be useful at times. But mostly a dude like you is a train on team spirit. Most likely you lower morale, because it's very obvious you don't like what you do, so your "who gives a damn" attitude carries across and is felt very clearly by people who do give a damn.
So, first, I don't think you're good at it. Second, even if you are, you are a downer to people who care. You are basically someone who pisses in the pool. I'm glad it makes your life better, but I'm not glad it necessarily comes at the expense of how other people feel, because there is just no way in hell you can hide your attitude (the fact that you don't love what you do), and that will most definitely impact those who do love it. The result is mediocrity and depression for all concerned. Yes, you have some spare change, but you are not truly fulfilled in life. You're not doing what you love. You're thinking about it. You can spend a few hours when you're not dead tired after work on what you love. The job is a necessary evil for you. It's a life of misery for you and for others around you, thanks to you.
Now, I'm not going to go so far as to suggest everyone like you should quit or be fired. I have some compassion. But you should understand that your decision not to follow your love has negative consequences for all concerned. Don't kid yourself thinking that it has no negative consequences.
The thing is that there is no such thing as a mere "business" decision. All decisions are life decisions. When you decide what job to do, you are not making merely a business decision. You are making a choice on how to spend the majority of your waking prime time hours throughout your whole f*cking life.
The day has 24 hours.
You sleep 7 (average healthy)
You eat, shit, sneeze, commute, scratch yourself, take shower, get a haircut, do laundry and do other meaningless and joyless maintenance tasks for what? -- probably another 4-5 hours a day, easy. Lunch alone is one hour. Commute? If you are lucky, 20 minutes. If not -- 3 hours one way. I'm averaging it out.
So 24 - 7 - 5 = 12 hours of functional, non-maintenance waking. Out of those 12 you spend 7 working (I assume your employer pays for 1 hour lunch, like they should, so it's included into your 8 hour work day).
7/12*100 = 58%
That's most of your life. If you take into account that you get tired as you work, and that for the remaining hours you cannot be as active as you were at work, then that percentage becomes something like 90% of quality prime time is spent at work.
So it's a life decision first and foremost. Business is there to serve and support life. Life is not there to serve and support business!
Most people who don't love programming claim they're good at it. That's not new. I've yet to see a person who was good at it and didn't like it. Of course I've heard many people claim they're good at it, but that's another matter.
Bingo.
Money is irrelevant. Money is only relevant when you love 2 things more or less equally and there is a large difference in income between them.
If you hate plumbing and you get into plumbing to make money...yea, you'll be a shit plumber who will make his own life miserable and lives around them as well! And in the end probably get a bum rep and never get another plumbing contract.
Do what you love. It's the only thing that makes sense. The same is true after you're hired. You gotta do what you love regardless of what management tells you to do, because following orders against your nature won't help neither you nor your management.
There is a cool sci-fi book where a group of people do exactly that -- use external randomizer -- for the exact same reasons! I believe they are called "harlequins" in the book.
I agree. Linux is still good. But suddenly Solaris becomes a lot more interesting. Who is to say that Solaris is not going to adapt the bazaar development model? Don't they keep at least some of Solaris code in Mercurial VCS which is designed for decentralized development?
That's a fine review from a user's point of view. If I understand correctly, most people are interested in an IT perspective on Vista. That means they are mostly discussing how Vista does or does not make it easier to maintain mass deployments on an enterprise scale.
:) Windows ME had some features that improved the end-user feel/experience too. But in the end it didn't take off.
That's not to take away from what you're saying. It's just that what you're saying is largely irrelevant to most people here.
I think this is indeed amazing. It blows my mind that perhaps Linux will stop being "it" for many people for whom it currently "is it" or "that's where it's at". To think that Solaris, from the point of view of software freedom, not only overcome FreeBSD, but also even Linux, it's pretty mind blowing to me.
What's next? Windows Vista GPL'ed? I doubt anyone cares about any technical achievements in Vista's kernel, but on a social plane, such an event would be very interesting.
Ultimate security cannot be guaranteed through protection from ill will. Once ill will has formed, there is insecurity already.
The best path is to prevent ill will from forming. That is done by convincing the disenfranchised people that they are cared for.
Me and you would like to think they "should". But reality is that they are protected behind the shield of that pseudo-person. Even though ethical mistakes belong to individuals making them, when it comes time to present your complaints, you have to address them to Microsoft, the pseudo-entity and not to a particular person.
The reason those pseudo-entities are so dangerous is that they make people faceless when they act on behalf of the company.
And that was actually the whole point. The point was to limit damages to the real person by creating this fictitious person who could accept responsibility instead of real people. This is perhaps OK when the damages are purely monetary (like unpaid debts), but when the damage is done to our culture, I like to think that corporation pseudo-person should be powerless to protect the individuals. And yet, in practice that's exactly what happens unless the problem reaches scandalous proportions, a la Enron, and then they punish some figure-head for it instead of putting the whole board of directors and all of the C citizens into jail, like it should be done.
Translation: if I don't mug this guy, someone else will...so why don't I be the one to mug him, cause at least, unlike other muggers, I will use that money to cure malaria, etc...
Nonsense. We don't need that kind of charity. I'd prefer there be no extra-curricular charity activity at all, as long as the main curriculum was 100% upright. It's what you do 9 to 5 that matters the most, and not what you do in the evening. If you rape and pillage 9 to 5, and come 6pm you start donating your time at a soup kitchen...guess what that is?
What a great post! I just wanted to say, thank you.
There is no point in simply judging, be the target of such judgment the boss, or ourselves. We have to examine the entire situation and judge the situation in a holistic way, rather than judge the segments of that situation, such as discrete individuals (which in truth are not really discrete).
I notice that most "failed promises" occur simply due to an unrealistic expectation and not due to any fault or flaw in the employee. Many employees want to please their boss, so much so, that they will instinctively, and without thinking, give project estimates that they believe the boss would like to hear, rather than a realistic project estimate. Also, giving a longer and truer-to-life estimate, besides not pleasing your boss, has the ability to create self-doubt (like...if I say it will take 2 months, does that mean I am dumb? Would a smarter person be able to do it in 1 month? I can't be seen as dumb. I must be seen as smart at all costs...1 month it is...). Estimates (or worse -- deadlines) are always affected by real causes, conditions and unknowns, which simply cannot be eliminated. Even a very smart person is going to be controlled and framed by those factors to a large degree. I think that one's own intelligence and ability is only about 35% of the equation, unless the conditions are absolutely ideal. If the conditions are ideal, then individual genius and experience can probably make a 20x performance difference sometimes between the best and the worst worker. But truth is, almost none of us work in ideal conditions. And those people who can demonstrate 20 times the performance of the worst worker in ideal conditions are statistical outliers. And you can't build your business model or project estimates on any kind of statistical outliers, unless you're an idiot or an egomaniac.
Instead of blaming bosses or employees, let's reevaluate our culture that is based on fear, anxiety and 100% unreasonable expectations that have no grounds in reality.
That said, bosses get paid far more than employees (and do far less, unless you count sitting in meetings and writing reports as "work"; I admit time spent coordinating real work is real boss-work, but bosses generally do not need to coordinate that much, if at all). And as long as that's the case, we absolutely have to demand more ethical and moral uprightness from bosses than from those they manage. When bosses start to get paid equivalent salaries to those they purport to manage, and when bosses start to have demonstrable, non-bullshit, personal deliverables (and no, a report or projected presentation doesn't count, unless you really have to research something in a way that taxes a unique skill in order to compose that report -- reporting what your "charges" did during the week does not tax any unique skill, so that is what I call bullshit deliverable), then sure, let's spread the responsibility evenly. But as long as the power and compensation are not evenly spread out, neither should personal moral responsibility and accountability be evenly spread out.
And finally, if you do want to think constructively about this, rather than pointing the blame finger at anyone, INCLUDING yourself, you have to examine the situation as a whole, with all of the situational social and psycho dynamics just as they appear to you before and after strong and sustained critical analysis.
I am of the opinion that in our current culture we are setup for failure. No matter how good you are, you will either crack, or burn out, and most definitely you will fail to live up to expectations (and then you can either lie about it -- which is what most seem to do -- or be honest about one's own limitations -- that's the balls of steel high road that is unfortunately almost never rewarded or understood by management).
We are human beings. We will never be perfect. In fact, we shouldn't even strive for perfection. Instead we should live content and happy lives and strive for doing a good or at least a decent job, while enjoying or, if possible, loving that job. Then, if perfection comes as a result of that, that's icing on the cake. But it's totally retarded to base our entire social and business culture on an expectation of perfection.
I agree that it's always good to keep our eyes open. Applets might have had problems in the past, but since then Java has not stood still.
The advantage of an applet is that it's more cross-platform for what it can do (I know that "hello world" in Javascript is very cross-platform, but who cares about that shallow level of compatibility?). Now with the new license Java will be 100% friendly to all environments without exceptions (including all open source OSes).
I think you have a point. Yet Javascript is also moving forward, and considering you get it for no-perceived-additional-download-cost, it's pretty good.
It doesn't matter if Best Buy pays for the results. Who cares if someone spends the hours or doesn't? You got results, you got paid. You, as Best Buy, are willing to pay for some amount of results. How these results get accomplished is not really your concern as long as the consumer experience is not hurt in the process. If consumers are happy and the results they want are accomplished, then it really doesn't matter who did what when, and in fact, it's one less thing you need to manage.
Not all jobs are as you describe, but I agree with you in that at a job there is a chance of being appreciated. In high school there is simply no chance at all to be appreciated.
Unfortunately many jobs are now also turning into a mildly better version of our piss poor high school system.
I know how to fix this.
/sarcasm
Let's bring back corporal punishment!
Yay!!
Well said.
I think patenting interestingness infringes on a similar patent someone already holds on truthiness.
I'll forgo modding to post this. It's not a shame, but rather, our voting system is broken.
Voting for the guy you truly like does INDEED work to put the guy you hate the most into office, with our CURRENT voting system. But it doesn't have to be that way!
Look here for a better (simple) voting system: http://www.approvalvoting.org/
If they are consumed by certain living organisms (can you think of any?), and the rate of output is less than the rate of consumption, then the level of those gasses will decline.
You doubt it? You better believe it.
I'm one of the few warriors still left on this god-forsaken planet.