Just a small note, but my landscaper has a Masters in Agriculture from Texas A&M. I hired him exactly because of those credentials. Otherwise, some dude with a mullet and a beat up pick up truck shows up and charges me $100 for 5 minutes of mowing.
Different strokes...
When I needed one (and I currently do), I walked around the neighborhood and found yards that I liked. Then I knocked on the doors of those and asked who their landscaper is/was. I don't know if my method will work better than yours or not, but it seems more relevant than what degree they have.
I doubt that the average 18 year old graduate has the knowledge or experience to create and execute a successful business plan.
The "average" 18 year old isn't going to be successful at college, either. Assuming we are talking about above-average kids here, there are certainly some who know what they want to do and how to go about it.
Now I agree that these basic business skills do not require an overpriced university education, but a more affordable two-year college diploma would certainly provide the required skills.
I 100% agree, which is why I mentioned Accounting as an example.
Also, I question the effectiveness of online education.
That's fair, but it should be more than fine for something basic like accounting. I wouldn't want to take a course like Lit or maybe even Marketing online - the in-class discussion is more important than the reading. Introductory accounting is just vocabulary and some basic formulas. You could just work through the textbook yourself and not really miss much, especially if you had someone to hit up for questions.
Anyway, my point wasn't that education is bad - rather, it needs to be tailored to each person and just sending a message that all kids need a 4-year degree to be successful is bogus. Apprenticeships and technical schools should not be discounted. A good tradesman can still make a good living.
That's my point though. You can't just make blanket advice for people. For certain people who are already on a track, college is not always in their immediate best interest. For people who aren't very disciplined academically, it will most likely rack up debt and result in a dropout or maybe a graduation with a low GPA and a close-to-useless degree. Better to work at Starbucks than to work at Starbucks with a degree in English and $50k in debt. You can always go to school when and if you are ready to work at it.
Yeah, have fun working at McDonalds for the next 60 years.
Don't you think it rather depends on the person? Let's say I'm going to start a landscaping business. Do you think I should blow $50,000 and 4 years on a degree in something, or should I put together a business plan and buy some equipment?
Granted, courses like accounting 101 will help out any business owner - but those can be taken anywhere, even online.
I went to college and feel that the rest of the "college experience" was valuable to me. But while I was in college, one of my friends was making $60k/year managing a stockyard, and this is in the mid 90s. I came out of school with over $40k in debt - he had a house.
Sure, 15+ years on I now make more than he does, my debt is paid off, and he's still doing the same thing, and he is back to square one if the place ever closes. But he was never going to be an engineer, no matter how much schooling he had. He's doing pretty well, he got into the real estate market almost a decade before me, and his house is 1/3 paid off.
In short, different strokes for different folks...
But you should know that Verizon local phone service and Verizon Wireless are completely separate entities.
That's good to know - and I understand that they are actually half-Vodafone. I'll hit them up if I absolutely have to, but I'd rather not funnel any more money Verizon's way. I keep a bare-minimum $14/month copper POTS line at home just so that my security system has something reliable to talk to, and partially in the hope that they are actually losing a bit of money on me.
I'm currently on T-Mobile. Customer service at Sprint pissed me off a long time ago, and so I switched. Verizon is my local telephone company, and their customer service has pissed me off on numerous occasions, so I don't think I even want to try them. So that leaves AT&T... I guess I'll give them a chance before burying my cell phone in the backyard.
First of all, the US does profile. I have a friend with the surname "Ali", and she has never been able to travel without getting pulled aside. She's on some kind of list... that is profiling. The US does it, and apparently sucks at it.
Second, because they suck at it, it IS evil. This woman is no more or less of a risk than any other American mother with 2 kids and a hubby. The government has no business putting her on a secret list and hassling her when she travels. No one is safer as a result.
So yeah, while I think you should take some common sense precautions, I think everyone should be subject to the same bullshit that your "profiled" class is subject to. Otherwise it is too easy to repress the "profiled" class.
I think what pissed off Americans was this close ally deciding to get all idealistic over Saddam freakin' Hussein. There were about 1000 reasons to knock the guy over, and while Bush was a dick and France was probably right, you are supposed to have your friend's backs. Especially after the US was dragged into the Balkans kicking and screaming. France is all warlike now for whatever reason, and so the US has their back. My cynical side says that we just can't stand to sit out a good war:)
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
You may not have noticed, but "we" (the West, the Arabs, everyone else) didn't start any war in Libya. A dictator was mowing down his own people. The UN getting involved isn't starting a war, it's preventing someone almost universally regarded as evil from winning. "War" is not the solution - involvement is. If the Arab League and NATO aren't welcome, the people dancing in the streets have a funny way of protesting.
Personally, I'm quite selfish and would have been perfectly content to just sit this one out. But since we're involved now, I hope that Qaddafi recognizing futility when he sees it and doesn't get his whole military killed.
Yeah, that Qaddafi guy is just trying to do what is best for his people. HE should be the one to profit from the oil. You know, as a reward!
Seriously, I don't know what the French motivation is, and I don't know what the British motivation is. Perhaps they are just being good humanists? Perhaps they are just letting the emotion of the "Arab Spring" get to them. Perhaps they want to ensure a steady supply of oil. The Americans have their backs, and even the Arab League is in. Whatever the motivation, the result is good, for most definitions of the word "good".
Still, I'd bet the breakdown is something like 10 cents worth of paper, a quarter for the reseller, and another dime for the transportation. In short, almost 50 cents per paper per day. For a month that is almost 15 bucks. I guess I could be wildly off, but if anything it seems low:)
People on the web seem to have divined that the times spends over $600 million on distribution and about $200 million on their newsroom. They have under 900,000 readers. That's an ominous $666 per reader per year, or over $55 per month.
My math might be wrong somewhere, but it is very clear that the internet is a cheaper delivery mechanism - though it clearly pulls in a fraction of the advertising.
Well, it's a buck fifty if you just buy it from the guy downstairs:)
Either way, it has to be ad revenue if the costs are so similar. Can you imagine the cost of the paper, cost of delivery, and then giving a cut to the newsstand guy? Distribution is comparatively free on the web.
A 'Soviet' is a type of administrative council, not a denonym for citizens of the former Soviet Union.
Just like "Shimmer", it's both!
Did you just graduate from a course or something? The word "Soviet" has been used in the West for decades to describe citizens and the government of the Soviet Union. It is also commonly used as an adjective to describe other things associated with the USSR. That's what happens when you put the word "Soviet" in your country name.
In NYC, it was just under $6/week delivered to your door(man). I have to assume that they don't get much ad revenue for the online edition and so they can't sell the "paper" as inexpensively.
I think you mean the ones that are the most successful are pay TV which was my point.
No, I meant the pay model is not very successful. HBO is hurting, despite having awesome content. Far from gaining viewership, they are bleeding subscribers. One explanation could be that people who care about commercials find Netflix more appealing. But my point is that on the broadcast television "platform", commercial-free TV is an aberration. Commercials pay most of the bills.
The idea of a limited duration monopoly isn't a socialist ideal--in a socialist state, people who do more work (such as inventors) are simply supposed to be recognized with a larger disbursement of public resources.
I might buy that it's not socialist because the intent isn't there, even if the effect is similar, and even if the goal is to better the entire society. But I sure won't buy that it is capitalism. Government interference in the free market is never a free-market capitalist idea, let alone the government invention of a new form of property. It is a lot like a tax incentive - the government gives tax incentives in order to achieve some social result. Home ownership for example. But no one would argue that the mortgage deduction is a capitalist program. It is social engineering, even if you don't want to call it socialism.
Now mind you, I am not a pure capitalist myself. I think the huge swings associated with capitalism are worth moderating, even at the cost of some efficiency. I think a limited patent/copyright term is a great idea, and it seems to work in practice, even if the laws have been stacked over the years in favor of the IP holders at the expense of society.
I just don't understand it when people are against other places where the government meddles with the economy/society, yet they support copyright as if it is the same as a physical property right.
LOL, okay - I don't want to quibble over semantics and definitions. We broadly agree. I'm not even anti-copyright. I think it, while not necessary, does benefit society.
My problem is that people have hijacked IP, and it goes far and above what is necessary to promote the useful arts. Most corporations might plan out 5 years - maybe 10 at a stretch - when planning a film, for instance. Extending copyright for films beyond that is just gravy for them and does nothing to add to society. I mean, to say that Disney controlling "Steamboat Willy" somehow benefits society is so absurd that it makes me question our collective sanity.:)
All property is a monopoly, recognized and often enforced by government.
Of course, but you can defend your property even without a government. The same cannot be said with an idea. Also, in the absence of government, you are deprived of nothing when someone performs a song that you wrote. Contrast this with someone taking your guitar - now you can't play the song, government or no government.
First and foremost, copyright exists to FAIRLY reward creation by means of COMPENSATION.
Hmmm...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Funny, I don't see the words "fair" or "compensation" or any synonyms of those words in that quote.
On what world is it possible for creation to not be rewarded and it to concurrent encourage creation?
On Earth from the first time a human created something until about the 18th century. Shakespeare regularly borrowed from other works with absolutely no compensation, or even attribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a small note, but my landscaper has a Masters in Agriculture from Texas A&M. I hired him exactly because of those credentials. Otherwise, some dude with a mullet and a beat up pick up truck shows up and charges me $100 for 5 minutes of mowing.
Different strokes...
When I needed one (and I currently do), I walked around the neighborhood and found yards that I liked. Then I knocked on the doors of those and asked who their landscaper is/was. I don't know if my method will work better than yours or not, but it seems more relevant than what degree they have.
I doubt that the average 18 year old graduate has the knowledge or experience to create and execute a successful business plan.
The "average" 18 year old isn't going to be successful at college, either. Assuming we are talking about above-average kids here, there are certainly some who know what they want to do and how to go about it.
Now I agree that these basic business skills do not require an overpriced university education, but a more affordable two-year college diploma would certainly provide the required skills.
I 100% agree, which is why I mentioned Accounting as an example.
Also, I question the effectiveness of online education.
That's fair, but it should be more than fine for something basic like accounting. I wouldn't want to take a course like Lit or maybe even Marketing online - the in-class discussion is more important than the reading. Introductory accounting is just vocabulary and some basic formulas. You could just work through the textbook yourself and not really miss much, especially if you had someone to hit up for questions.
Anyway, my point wasn't that education is bad - rather, it needs to be tailored to each person and just sending a message that all kids need a 4-year degree to be successful is bogus. Apprenticeships and technical schools should not be discounted. A good tradesman can still make a good living.
1) What if the business doesn't go so well
2) What if the business owner wants to change careers
Re-evaluate at that point and maybe attend school if it would further your goals?
There are some exceptions, but they are few.
That's my point though. You can't just make blanket advice for people. For certain people who are already on a track, college is not always in their immediate best interest. For people who aren't very disciplined academically, it will most likely rack up debt and result in a dropout or maybe a graduation with a low GPA and a close-to-useless degree. Better to work at Starbucks than to work at Starbucks with a degree in English and $50k in debt. You can always go to school when and if you are ready to work at it.
Yeah, have fun working at McDonalds for the next 60 years.
Don't you think it rather depends on the person? Let's say I'm going to start a landscaping business. Do you think I should blow $50,000 and 4 years on a degree in something, or should I put together a business plan and buy some equipment?
Granted, courses like accounting 101 will help out any business owner - but those can be taken anywhere, even online.
I went to college and feel that the rest of the "college experience" was valuable to me. But while I was in college, one of my friends was making $60k/year managing a stockyard, and this is in the mid 90s. I came out of school with over $40k in debt - he had a house.
Sure, 15+ years on I now make more than he does, my debt is paid off, and he's still doing the same thing, and he is back to square one if the place ever closes. But he was never going to be an engineer, no matter how much schooling he had. He's doing pretty well, he got into the real estate market almost a decade before me, and his house is 1/3 paid off.
In short, different strokes for different folks...
But you should know that Verizon local phone service and Verizon Wireless are completely separate entities.
That's good to know - and I understand that they are actually half-Vodafone. I'll hit them up if I absolutely have to, but I'd rather not funnel any more money Verizon's way. I keep a bare-minimum $14/month copper POTS line at home just so that my security system has something reliable to talk to, and partially in the hope that they are actually losing a bit of money on me.
I'm currently on T-Mobile. Customer service at Sprint pissed me off a long time ago, and so I switched. Verizon is my local telephone company, and their customer service has pissed me off on numerous occasions, so I don't think I even want to try them. So that leaves AT&T... I guess I'll give them a chance before burying my cell phone in the backyard.
this time international law has been followed and things were done properly.
Partially because, when France started to talk like they were going to go it alone, the US stepped up and gave France their support.
Well, you're an alien.
What's pissing off Americans is that the French were right.
Your thesis can't be right. Americans are LESS pissed at the French now than they were at the time.
Have you ever heard of any other military intervention where the US was aligned with Hezbollah?
LOL, yeah, you know you are a real asshole when you have those two coming at you at the same time :)
I mean profiling, it's evil or something. Anyway.
First of all, the US does profile. I have a friend with the surname "Ali", and she has never been able to travel without getting pulled aside. She's on some kind of list... that is profiling. The US does it, and apparently sucks at it.
Second, because they suck at it, it IS evil. This woman is no more or less of a risk than any other American mother with 2 kids and a hubby. The government has no business putting her on a secret list and hassling her when she travels. No one is safer as a result.
So yeah, while I think you should take some common sense precautions, I think everyone should be subject to the same bullshit that your "profiled" class is subject to. Otherwise it is too easy to repress the "profiled" class.
Want some French Fries again?
I think what pissed off Americans was this close ally deciding to get all idealistic over Saddam freakin' Hussein. There were about 1000 reasons to knock the guy over, and while Bush was a dick and France was probably right, you are supposed to have your friend's backs. Especially after the US was dragged into the Balkans kicking and screaming. France is all warlike now for whatever reason, and so the US has their back. My cynical side says that we just can't stand to sit out a good war :)
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
You may not have noticed, but "we" (the West, the Arabs, everyone else) didn't start any war in Libya. A dictator was mowing down his own people. The UN getting involved isn't starting a war, it's preventing someone almost universally regarded as evil from winning. "War" is not the solution - involvement is. If the Arab League and NATO aren't welcome, the people dancing in the streets have a funny way of protesting.
Personally, I'm quite selfish and would have been perfectly content to just sit this one out. But since we're involved now, I hope that Qaddafi recognizing futility when he sees it and doesn't get his whole military killed.
"Oil"
Yeah, that Qaddafi guy is just trying to do what is best for his people. HE should be the one to profit from the oil. You know, as a reward!
Seriously, I don't know what the French motivation is, and I don't know what the British motivation is. Perhaps they are just being good humanists? Perhaps they are just letting the emotion of the "Arab Spring" get to them. Perhaps they want to ensure a steady supply of oil. The Americans have their backs, and even the Arab League is in. Whatever the motivation, the result is good, for most definitions of the word "good".
LOL! Best comment in the whole thread.
Still, I'd bet the breakdown is something like 10 cents worth of paper, a quarter for the reseller, and another dime for the transportation. In short, almost 50 cents per paper per day. For a month that is almost 15 bucks. I guess I could be wildly off, but if anything it seems low :)
People on the web seem to have divined that the times spends over $600 million on distribution and about $200 million on their newsroom. They have under 900,000 readers. That's an ominous $666 per reader per year, or over $55 per month.
My math might be wrong somewhere, but it is very clear that the internet is a cheaper delivery mechanism - though it clearly pulls in a fraction of the advertising.
Well, it's a buck fifty if you just buy it from the guy downstairs :)
Either way, it has to be ad revenue if the costs are so similar. Can you imagine the cost of the paper, cost of delivery, and then giving a cut to the newsstand guy? Distribution is comparatively free on the web.
A 'Soviet' is a type of administrative council, not a denonym for citizens of the former Soviet Union.
Just like "Shimmer", it's both!
Did you just graduate from a course or something? The word "Soviet" has been used in the West for decades to describe citizens and the government of the Soviet Union. It is also commonly used as an adjective to describe other things associated with the USSR. That's what happens when you put the word "Soviet" in your country name.
In NYC, it was just under $6/week delivered to your door(man). I have to assume that they don't get much ad revenue for the online edition and so they can't sell the "paper" as inexpensively.
I think you mean the ones that are the most successful are pay TV which was my point.
No, I meant the pay model is not very successful. HBO is hurting, despite having awesome content. Far from gaining viewership, they are bleeding subscribers. One explanation could be that people who care about commercials find Netflix more appealing. But my point is that on the broadcast television "platform", commercial-free TV is an aberration. Commercials pay most of the bills.
The idea of a limited duration monopoly isn't a socialist ideal--in a socialist state, people who do more work (such as inventors) are simply supposed to be recognized with a larger disbursement of public resources.
I might buy that it's not socialist because the intent isn't there, even if the effect is similar, and even if the goal is to better the entire society. But I sure won't buy that it is capitalism. Government interference in the free market is never a free-market capitalist idea, let alone the government invention of a new form of property. It is a lot like a tax incentive - the government gives tax incentives in order to achieve some social result. Home ownership for example. But no one would argue that the mortgage deduction is a capitalist program. It is social engineering, even if you don't want to call it socialism.
Now mind you, I am not a pure capitalist myself. I think the huge swings associated with capitalism are worth moderating, even at the cost of some efficiency. I think a limited patent/copyright term is a great idea, and it seems to work in practice, even if the laws have been stacked over the years in favor of the IP holders at the expense of society.
I just don't understand it when people are against other places where the government meddles with the economy/society, yet they support copyright as if it is the same as a physical property right.
LOL, okay - I don't want to quibble over semantics and definitions. We broadly agree. I'm not even anti-copyright. I think it, while not necessary, does benefit society.
My problem is that people have hijacked IP, and it goes far and above what is necessary to promote the useful arts. Most corporations might plan out 5 years - maybe 10 at a stretch - when planning a film, for instance. Extending copyright for films beyond that is just gravy for them and does nothing to add to society. I mean, to say that Disney controlling "Steamboat Willy" somehow benefits society is so absurd that it makes me question our collective sanity. :)
All property is a monopoly, recognized and often enforced by government.
Of course, but you can defend your property even without a government. The same cannot be said with an idea. Also, in the absence of government, you are deprived of nothing when someone performs a song that you wrote. Contrast this with someone taking your guitar - now you can't play the song, government or no government.
First and foremost, copyright exists to FAIRLY reward creation by means of COMPENSATION.
Hmmm...
Funny, I don't see the words "fair" or "compensation" or any synonyms of those words in that quote.
On what world is it possible for creation to not be rewarded and it to concurrent encourage creation?
On Earth from the first time a human created something until about the 18th century. Shakespeare regularly borrowed from other works with absolutely no compensation, or even attribution.