Maybe an "entrepener" with a couple of $M could use a "wizard" and write a click filtering app and make a big noise about a non-existant problem he has the solution for. Google will make a bigger noise when they publicly swat him like bug as a deterent to others.
Interesting argument, but "bias" can never be removed it can only ever be constrained. The reason why I read slashdot, google news, the BBC web and consider thier bias acceptable is that they go to some effort to be impartial. The reason I all but ignore Faux news is because they go to some effort to push an adgenda I disagree with (ask Rupert, he freely admits it!!!). The point is you must look at the a source's percived (and sometimes clearly stated) bias as well as try and supress your own in order to form a "reasonable" opinion of what sources you can trust to be the least biased or the most accurate.
The problem I see is that well funded nutjob groups like the anti-climate-warming-lobby skew the media by demanding equal time for thier already discredited theories and objections, poor journalistic standards are applied (particularly in science reporting) in the name of removing the bias when actualy the bias is quite justified. This is not to say they should always filtered out and ignored just that thier arguments should be given less weight because of the well publisiced and credible research that is available to counter thier previous press releases and publicity stunts. Thanks to the web and it's multitude of sources these problems are becoming easier to spot for anyone who takes the time to read a variety of opinions and reports. (eg: anyone can read Amnesty's annual report and decide for themselves who is insulting the USA).
The problem now is that the "big picture" gets burried in a mass of details and rapidly superceded by yet another major event. I am not from the US but from my point of view Clinton lied about a blow job, waged a "legal war" and kept the budget in the black, for this he had the shit kicked out of him. Bush and co lied about so much more, started a much larger "illegal war" and blew the budget to record heights, for this he is treated like the emporer with no clothes. A rough estimate shows that during this time the two presidents spent ~US$5 Trillion on the US military machine also during this time ~60 Million children starved to death.
"We don't even know for certain if we are causing global warming"
This is a common misconception also alluded to by the GP post. Check somewhere where the climate scientists hang out rather than listening to the politically skewed crap on TV and in the newspapers. There are a remarkable number of peer reviewed studies that have predicted a change that has later been confirmed by observation. That does not mean they have all the answers but they are telling us that the planet is definitely warming (even though soot may be slowing it down somewhat).
However I do agree that the idea of building a "sapce ring" is stupid and wastefull in the extreme. In my mind is just giving ammo to the politicians and corporations who claim change is too hard and will bring financial ruin apon us all.
I know our IP laws are pretty similar to the US and are being "syncronized" because of the recent FTA, (Fuck The Australian's) agreement. However as I understand it there was no legal notice given to the ISP, so legally the sysadmin cannot act, therefore the case will be laughed out of court. BUT, it will cost a fortune to get an actual court decision and the lawyers don't mind being laughed at for the right price.
I think that the labels are looking to settle out of court, thier lowest buyoff price might be something like, forcing the ISP to make thier "report infringement" info more prominent. In other words they are trying to scare sysadmins into making sure thier message gets prominent (and free) advertising and to inject some parinoia into thier bosses for good measure.
An outragous claim backed by deep pockets will often force the victim to "do something" to get the legal monkey off thier back. The bully knows they have no chance of winning in court. However it doesn't matter since they also have no intention of going to court, they want to "negotiate an amicable settlement". I hope the ISP shows some balls and drags them through the courts to get recompense for legal costs and losses due to injuring thier reputation.
As another poster points out this is not the US courts, however the recent FTA means we now have to "synconize" our IP laws with the US so it might as well be in the US.
BTW: If Rummy is reading this to you George, there is no need to send CIA agents on luxury kidnappings to Oz, we can take care of our own file terrorist and insurgent networks. Maybe if Johnny does good, you will reward us by removing your sugar and beef subsidies or should we just keep preying to Santa?
"I'm not certified in anything. I choose to actually know the subject than to have a pretty piece of paper."
Too smart fer book learnin' eh? I understand that a diploma or an MS cert doesn't get you very far. The best development manager I knew was in his 60's and had been at the same company for 40 years. He had no qualifications other than a big brain and lots of wisdom. However he came from the days when you could actually walk inside the computer, get on the job trainning from the people who built it and work for a single company your entire life. Computer Science was not even a recognised subject at Universities.
Today nothing opens a door as quickly as a real BSc and a few years experience, without a decent qualification most people will stay stuck not far from the bottom of the tech heap. OTOH: If all you want to do at work is fiddle with the machines on peoples desks, the fact that you can create a fake diploma on your color printer is all the cert's you will need.
The idea of the pretty paper and funny hats at the end of a degree is to prove you...
1. Have (or at least had) a genuine interest.
2. Can educate yourself (the lecuturer's are there to guide and judge you, unlike an MSCE where they simply pump facts into you).
3. Can actully finish a multi-year "project".
4. Can understand the underlying concepts of your chosen field and relate them to others.
"I choose to actually know the subject" - If the subject is Computer Science, I doubt you will ever "know" it, with a lot of hard work you may understand it and even become a specialist in one corner of it. OTOH: If the subject is very narrow, say configuring particular types of machines or using a particular language, then you can ether "know it" or RTFM.
Couldn't have said it better myself we should all agree on a set of basic values and codify them, government should be largely reduced to administering basic resources and infrastructure we all depend on. The UDHR is an excellent start but (in my own opinion) is too ambitious and somewhat biased towards the "nuclear family". The problem is not basic agreement it is about getting the political leaders of the most powerfull nations to submit "thier nation" (read themselves) to a universal jurisdiction on even the most basic human issues such as control over international Aid supply, WMD's, etc.
The extradition of Pinochet from the UK to face charges was a big win for international law but only because the house of lords did the "right thing". How hard would it be to extradite a leader, say from the US/UK/China/Russia/Israel, to face charges, what kind of penalties can be imposed, what jurisdiction would you extradite them too, how can you enforce it?
It seems so fucking obvious to anybody who gives it even a passing thought. Pick some basic rules we all agree on, declare a amnesty on the codified crimes and then back it up with big teeth. (I was using the "dead people" as a way of asking "how hard can it be?").
Given the (historically current) moral emphasis placed on Nations as defined by a line on a map, eg: Sovreignty, Patriotisim, Military, Death penalty, Incaseration, Taxation, etc. I think a planet-wide "Magna-Carta" is a long while off yet. The idea of a Nation has served us well since the start of the industrial revolution but reached an East/West "Mexican stand off" that has ensured there will only ever be one more "full scale war".
Nations in thier current form of competing (often violently) regions on the planet are rapidly becoming even more self defeating and destructive than the old style tribal warlords. Population growth and resource limits along with technological and political evolution are yelling at us to co-operate and adapt to the limits of our blue rock or become just another evolutionary dead end. It seems my friend nobody can hear it because of the noise from the guns and endless arguments over accountability.
I agree, technically they are not monochromatic (shades of one colour) however "duochromatic" does not seem to be recognised as a single word. I think the word you are looking for is dichromatic (or duo chromatic or duo-chromatic) and technically even that does not suffice since white is made up of many different colours.
Having said all that the joke is now dead and the panther fell asleep.
"There is no reason for black and white anything today" - You insensitive clod. You obviously have no eye for art and no feelings for Penguins, Zebras, Pandas and other monochromatic life forms.
Disclaimer: I think MS is acting "immoral". ie: Nations cannot live in peace without thier people openly communicating.
"No law or code of ethics trumps your responsibility to act morally."
Morality begat a code of ethics begat a law. However everyones "morals" are different, in some cultures it's "immoral" to show an image of a person who is now dead, in others it's "immoral" to appear in mixed company without covering all exposed skin. The only reason we cooperate with laws is so that we can live together in large numbers with relative peace. The first ammendment is an example of that type of law. Many of the other laws and the rest of the bullshit is just some powerfull group trying to make everyone "be responsible" by imposing thier own idiosyncratic "morals" with the force of the law.
The "woraround" link in TFA led me to this link. That persons situation and the MSN situation in China is not about assasination threats or even the law, it is about intimidation to silence dissent. We all know that anyone with a handfull of crayons can intellectualy threaten Bush, but how does someone posting on a blog physically threaten the president anymore than graffiti on a wall?
"We've had 44 presidents, 4 assasinated while in office. 4 more who have had attempts on their life while in office. That's 18% of the the presidents so far."
Thanks for the interesting stats on what is obviously a dangerous but very rewarding job but other dangerous and rewarding jobs don't seem to require an army of SS officers. From my brief experience on the planet it seems to me that political leaders do more to succesfullyincite violence than all the blogs ever writen combined.
"Freedom is more important than being poor." - I think many people would feel that freedom from starvation is more important than ideological freedom, with starvation you will die, death from ideology is often a choice.
I apologise if I have offended you and I genuinely sympathise with your friends who were caught up in a vile atrocity, I definitely do not support the massacre of demonstrators by anyone and make no excuses for those who are involved at any level of govt. However it seems that most governments (including the US) have also brutally repressed internal dissent in the past and will do so again in the future. If you doubt what I say then go to times square and start handing out AQ recruitment material, you will be wearing an orange jump suit before you can say "bye-bye freedom".
I also agree that Chairman Mao was responsible for much of the agricultural mess and agree that the Chineese people are indeed hard-working and "noble". However I don't think it is logical to blame Mao for the mess and then claim succesive leaders had nothing to do with cleaning it up.
Revolution cannot march on an empty stomach, it is fermented in the full stomachs of the middle class and if it happens in China then that is also where it will start (barring the US bombing them into freedom, ala Iraq). My hope is that if such a revolution were to take place that it would be either a "bloodless coup" or even a gradual "face-saving" move towards democracy. No matter who succedes the current leadership in China, I hope they make the continuation of adequate food, water and shelter for the general population a top prority.
My original post was to point out that statistically China has done more to overcome starvation and abject poverty than anyone else in the past 30yrs. I did this not because I support the Chineese Govt but because I support the provision of basic human needs (or at least the opportunity to obtain them). It is not up to me to decide if the Chineese people think that freedom from starvation was worth the draconian and often cruel measures taken by the govt to implement it.
This is not aimed at you personally. Whenever China and Human Rights appear on slashdot I find the post is more often than not actually about politics rather than Human Rights
Before you start throwing stones at China consider that over the past 30yrs the Chineese Govt has dragged 600 million people above the $1/day poverty line and significantly improved the standard of living of hundreds of millions more. Not so long ago parents in the West used to say "eat your dinner, there starving in China", (well at least mine and J.Lennon's did). If we were to confiscate the income of the richest 500 people in the world we could do the same thing for another billion.
Does this mean China is a nice place to live? do the means justify the ends? (re: "enemy combatants", "confiscation from the rich", "population control"). You can argue about history, politics and philosophy all day, but one thing remains indisputable. Over the last few decades they have done more than anyone else to relive the needless suffering of 1/5th of the worlds poorest people. The worldwide reduction in the incidence of starvation since the 1960's is almost entirely due to Chineese peasants having enough to eat. Personally I don't think the Chineese give a flying-fuck about what MS thinks because they will simply pull the plug if they don't play nice./rant
"One thing I've noticed -- and it's not just that I'm getting older -- is that young adults are a lot less mature than 20 years ago....Professors I talk to bitch about this a lot, having witnessed the decline."
You are suffering from geriatric myopia, (ie: it IS because you are getting older). Kids today are just as "mature" as when you were amoungst them. Since you have mentioned this observation came from some acedemic friends, is it possible you don't know any kids personally?
When I was 18 I told a prospective employer at a petrol station "no thanks" because he wanted to me to cut my hair and loose my dope leaf earing. Today I have short hair, (actually a bald spot with salt-n-pepper trim), I sit next to a 50-ish man with a receding hairline, neat ponnytail and a gold sleeper, go figure?
The only reason to follow a dress code and look neat at an interview is to show respect to your employer by "playing the part". In other words you are trying to "fit in" by looking like they do in an effort get/keep a job. You would not dress up in an expensive suit to get a labouring job since the employer would probably think you don't want to get your hands dirty.
Like it or not most of the "grown-ups" on the planet are not "mature" enough to overcome thier primative fear and loathing of people who look "different" and will equate the "difference" to immaturity, idiocy, disrespect, incompetence, etc, so that they themselves can feel superior (or at least normal). Ask yourself, if the situation were reversed and all your bosses and rivals had a corporate tattoo on thier forehead, would you do it?
Disclaimer: I am a 46yo proffesional and have two grown kids (20 & 25). Speaking of maturity, have you been through your "mid life crisis" yet, I have and it was just as much fun and heartache as my "teenage crisis".
BTW: I agree wholeheartedly with part of the quote from the GP: "Stand out of the crowd by what you do, not what you look like." - The probability of that realisation occuring to a particular person increases with age but it can and does occur to people at any age above puberty. Having said that it does not automatically follow that the GP is "mature", it just means they have learnt one particular lesson. There are good reasons to have dress codes (eg: friend and foe situations, group identity) but there are also good reasons for dressing "wierd", eg: to draw attention towards/away from something/someone, unmasks zenophobes, diagonse geriatric myopia...:)
I have been trying to locate a decent manual for my Roman Charriot. I mean when they were published they were chiseled into rock, ya think they last, but nooooo people just make footpaths out of them...., Mercedes, you insenitive clod.
You must either be young or failed to pay attention in your youth. We are going back to the 50's & 60's with censorship at the moment but up until 9/11 we were going forward.
Yes, the Chineese may do what the US wants and revalue it's curency upwards by 40%, but what if instead of floating it they pegged it to the Euro at the same time?
Slashdot Mirror
I found that any decent game takes about an hour just to learn how it works.
Maybe an "entrepener" with a couple of $M could use a "wizard" and write a click filtering app and make a big noise about a non-existant problem he has the solution for. Google will make a bigger noise when they publicly swat him like bug as a deterent to others.
I guess a 2D building would be called a flat!
Interesting argument, but "bias" can never be removed it can only ever be constrained. The reason why I read slashdot, google news, the BBC web and consider thier bias acceptable is that they go to some effort to be impartial. The reason I all but ignore Faux news is because they go to some effort to push an adgenda I disagree with (ask Rupert, he freely admits it!!!). The point is you must look at the a source's percived (and sometimes clearly stated) bias as well as try and supress your own in order to form a "reasonable" opinion of what sources you can trust to be the least biased or the most accurate.
The problem I see is that well funded nutjob groups like the anti-climate-warming-lobby skew the media by demanding equal time for thier already discredited theories and objections, poor journalistic standards are applied (particularly in science reporting) in the name of removing the bias when actualy the bias is quite justified. This is not to say they should always filtered out and ignored just that thier arguments should be given less weight because of the well publisiced and credible research that is available to counter thier previous press releases and publicity stunts. Thanks to the web and it's multitude of sources these problems are becoming easier to spot for anyone who takes the time to read a variety of opinions and reports. (eg: anyone can read Amnesty's annual report and decide for themselves who is insulting the USA).
The problem now is that the "big picture" gets burried in a mass of details and rapidly superceded by yet another major event. I am not from the US but from my point of view Clinton lied about a blow job, waged a "legal war" and kept the budget in the black, for this he had the shit kicked out of him. Bush and co lied about so much more, started a much larger "illegal war" and blew the budget to record heights, for this he is treated like the emporer with no clothes. A rough estimate shows that during this time the two presidents spent ~US$5 Trillion on the US military machine also during this time ~60 Million children starved to death.
"We don't even know for certain if we are causing global warming"
This is a common misconception also alluded to by the GP post. Check somewhere where the climate scientists hang out rather than listening to the politically skewed crap on TV and in the newspapers. There are a remarkable number of peer reviewed studies that have predicted a change that has later been confirmed by observation. That does not mean they have all the answers but they are telling us that the planet is definitely warming (even though soot may be slowing it down somewhat).
However I do agree that the idea of building a "sapce ring" is stupid and wastefull in the extreme. In my mind is just giving ammo to the politicians and corporations who claim change is too hard and will bring financial ruin apon us all.
I know our IP laws are pretty similar to the US and are being "syncronized" because of the recent FTA, (Fuck The Australian's) agreement. However as I understand it there was no legal notice given to the ISP, so legally the sysadmin cannot act, therefore the case will be laughed out of court. BUT, it will cost a fortune to get an actual court decision and the lawyers don't mind being laughed at for the right price.
I think that the labels are looking to settle out of court, thier lowest buyoff price might be something like, forcing the ISP to make thier "report infringement" info more prominent. In other words they are trying to scare sysadmins into making sure thier message gets prominent (and free) advertising and to inject some parinoia into thier bosses for good measure.
An outragous claim backed by deep pockets will often force the victim to "do something" to get the legal monkey off thier back. The bully knows they have no chance of winning in court. However it doesn't matter since they also have no intention of going to court, they want to "negotiate an amicable settlement". I hope the ISP shows some balls and drags them through the courts to get recompense for legal costs and losses due to injuring thier reputation.
As another poster points out this is not the US courts, however the recent FTA means we now have to "synconize" our IP laws with the US so it might as well be in the US.
BTW: If Rummy is reading this to you George, there is no need to send CIA agents on luxury kidnappings to Oz, we can take care of our own file terrorist and insurgent networks. Maybe if Johnny does good, you will reward us by removing your sugar and beef subsidies or should we just keep preying to Santa?
Ooooowww, Could you forward a URL please?
"I'm not certified in anything. I choose to actually know the subject than to have a pretty piece of paper."
Too smart fer book learnin' eh? I understand that a diploma or an MS cert doesn't get you very far. The best development manager I knew was in his 60's and had been at the same company for 40 years. He had no qualifications other than a big brain and lots of wisdom. However he came from the days when you could actually walk inside the computer, get on the job trainning from the people who built it and work for a single company your entire life. Computer Science was not even a recognised subject at Universities.
Today nothing opens a door as quickly as a real BSc and a few years experience, without a decent qualification most people will stay stuck not far from the bottom of the tech heap. OTOH: If all you want to do at work is fiddle with the machines on peoples desks, the fact that you can create a fake diploma on your color printer is all the cert's you will need.
The idea of the pretty paper and funny hats at the end of a degree is to prove you...
1. Have (or at least had) a genuine interest.
2. Can educate yourself (the lecuturer's are there to guide and judge you, unlike an MSCE where they simply pump facts into you).
3. Can actully finish a multi-year "project".
4. Can understand the underlying concepts of your chosen field and relate them to others.
"I choose to actually know the subject" - If the subject is Computer Science, I doubt you will ever "know" it, with a lot of hard work you may understand it and even become a specialist in one corner of it. OTOH: If the subject is very narrow, say configuring particular types of machines or using a particular language, then you can ether "know it" or RTFM.
Couldn't have said it better myself we should all agree on a set of basic values and codify them, government should be largely reduced to administering basic resources and infrastructure we all depend on. The UDHR is an excellent start but (in my own opinion) is too ambitious and somewhat biased towards the "nuclear family". The problem is not basic agreement it is about getting the political leaders of the most powerfull nations to submit "thier nation" (read themselves) to a universal jurisdiction on even the most basic human issues such as control over international Aid supply, WMD's, etc.
The extradition of Pinochet from the UK to face charges was a big win for international law but only because the house of lords did the "right thing". How hard would it be to extradite a leader, say from the US/UK/China/Russia/Israel, to face charges, what kind of penalties can be imposed, what jurisdiction would you extradite them too, how can you enforce it?
It seems so fucking obvious to anybody who gives it even a passing thought. Pick some basic rules we all agree on, declare a amnesty on the codified crimes and then back it up with big teeth. (I was using the "dead people" as a way of asking "how hard can it be?").
Given the (historically current) moral emphasis placed on Nations as defined by a line on a map, eg: Sovreignty, Patriotisim, Military, Death penalty, Incaseration, Taxation, etc. I think a planet-wide "Magna-Carta" is a long while off yet. The idea of a Nation has served us well since the start of the industrial revolution but reached an East/West "Mexican stand off" that has ensured there will only ever be one more "full scale war".
Nations in thier current form of competing (often violently) regions on the planet are rapidly becoming even more self defeating and destructive than the old style tribal warlords. Population growth and resource limits along with technological and political evolution are yelling at us to co-operate and adapt to the limits of our blue rock or become just another evolutionary dead end. It seems my friend nobody can hear it because of the noise from the guns and endless arguments over accountability.
Probably 25% don't know and don't give a shit.
Nothing attracts pedants like slahdot :)
I agree, technically they are not monochromatic (shades of one colour) however "duochromatic" does not seem to be recognised as a single word. I think the word you are looking for is dichromatic (or duo chromatic or duo-chromatic) and technically even that does not suffice since white is made up of many different colours.
Having said all that the joke is now dead and the panther fell asleep.
"There is no reason for black and white anything today" - You insensitive clod. You obviously have no eye for art and no feelings for Penguins, Zebras, Pandas and other monochromatic life forms.
I bet the carpet has a drop sheet on it!
I thought Mars was the god of war?
Disclaimer: I think MS is acting "immoral". ie: Nations cannot live in peace without thier people openly communicating.
"No law or code of ethics trumps your responsibility to act morally."
Morality begat a code of ethics begat a law. However everyones "morals" are different, in some cultures it's "immoral" to show an image of a person who is now dead, in others it's "immoral" to appear in mixed company without covering all exposed skin. The only reason we cooperate with laws is so that we can live together in large numbers with relative peace. The first ammendment is an example of that type of law. Many of the other laws and the rest of the bullshit is just some powerfull group trying to make everyone "be responsible" by imposing thier own idiosyncratic "morals" with the force of the law.
The "woraround" link in TFA led me to this link. That persons situation and the MSN situation in China is not about assasination threats or even the law, it is about intimidation to silence dissent. We all know that anyone with a handfull of crayons can intellectualy threaten Bush, but how does someone posting on a blog physically threaten the president anymore than graffiti on a wall?
"We've had 44 presidents, 4 assasinated while in office. 4 more who have had attempts on their life while in office. That's 18% of the the presidents so far."
Thanks for the interesting stats on what is obviously a dangerous but very rewarding job but other dangerous and rewarding jobs don't seem to require an army of SS officers. From my brief experience on the planet it seems to me that political leaders do more to succesfully incite violence than all the blogs ever writen combined.
"Freedom is more important than being poor." - I think many people would feel that freedom from starvation is more important than ideological freedom, with starvation you will die, death from ideology is often a choice.
I apologise if I have offended you and I genuinely sympathise with your friends who were caught up in a vile atrocity, I definitely do not support the massacre of demonstrators by anyone and make no excuses for those who are involved at any level of govt. However it seems that most governments (including the US) have also brutally repressed internal dissent in the past and will do so again in the future. If you doubt what I say then go to times square and start handing out AQ recruitment material, you will be wearing an orange jump suit before you can say "bye-bye freedom".
I also agree that Chairman Mao was responsible for much of the agricultural mess and agree that the Chineese people are indeed hard-working and "noble". However I don't think it is logical to blame Mao for the mess and then claim succesive leaders had nothing to do with cleaning it up.
Revolution cannot march on an empty stomach, it is fermented in the full stomachs of the middle class and if it happens in China then that is also where it will start (barring the US bombing them into freedom, ala Iraq). My hope is that if such a revolution were to take place that it would be either a "bloodless coup" or even a gradual "face-saving" move towards democracy. No matter who succedes the current leadership in China, I hope they make the continuation of adequate food, water and shelter for the general population a top prority.
My original post was to point out that statistically China has done more to overcome starvation and abject poverty than anyone else in the past 30yrs. I did this not because I support the Chineese Govt but because I support the provision of basic human needs (or at least the opportunity to obtain them). It is not up to me to decide if the Chineese people think that freedom from starvation was worth the draconian and often cruel measures taken by the govt to implement it.
"a couple of mega-agro-corps would have done them a lot more good." - Maybe but my point is that they didn't.
This is not aimed at you personally. Whenever China and Human Rights appear on slashdot I find the post is more often than not actually about politics rather than Human Rights
/rant
Before you start throwing stones at China consider that over the past 30yrs the Chineese Govt has dragged 600 million people above the $1/day poverty line and significantly improved the standard of living of hundreds of millions more. Not so long ago parents in the West used to say "eat your dinner, there starving in China", (well at least mine and J.Lennon's did). If we were to confiscate the income of the richest 500 people in the world we could do the same thing for another billion.
Does this mean China is a nice place to live? do the means justify the ends? (re: "enemy combatants", "confiscation from the rich", "population control"). You can argue about history, politics and philosophy all day, but one thing remains indisputable. Over the last few decades they have done more than anyone else to relive the needless suffering of 1/5th of the worlds poorest people. The worldwide reduction in the incidence of starvation since the 1960's is almost entirely due to Chineese peasants having enough to eat. Personally I don't think the Chineese give a flying-fuck about what MS thinks because they will simply pull the plug if they don't play nice.
"One thing I've noticed -- and it's not just that I'm getting older -- is that young adults are a lot less mature than 20 years ago....Professors I talk to bitch about this a lot, having witnessed the decline."
:)
You are suffering from geriatric myopia, (ie: it IS because you are getting older). Kids today are just as "mature" as when you were amoungst them. Since you have mentioned this observation came from some acedemic friends, is it possible you don't know any kids personally?
When I was 18 I told a prospective employer at a petrol station "no thanks" because he wanted to me to cut my hair and loose my dope leaf earing. Today I have short hair, (actually a bald spot with salt-n-pepper trim), I sit next to a 50-ish man with a receding hairline, neat ponnytail and a gold sleeper, go figure?
The only reason to follow a dress code and look neat at an interview is to show respect to your employer by "playing the part". In other words you are trying to "fit in" by looking like they do in an effort get/keep a job. You would not dress up in an expensive suit to get a labouring job since the employer would probably think you don't want to get your hands dirty.
Like it or not most of the "grown-ups" on the planet are not "mature" enough to overcome thier primative fear and loathing of people who look "different" and will equate the "difference" to immaturity, idiocy, disrespect, incompetence, etc, so that they themselves can feel superior (or at least normal). Ask yourself, if the situation were reversed and all your bosses and rivals had a corporate tattoo on thier forehead, would you do it?
Disclaimer: I am a 46yo proffesional and have two grown kids (20 & 25). Speaking of maturity, have you been through your "mid life crisis" yet, I have and it was just as much fun and heartache as my "teenage crisis".
BTW: I agree wholeheartedly with part of the quote from the GP: "Stand out of the crowd by what you do, not what you look like." - The probability of that realisation occuring to a particular person increases with age but it can and does occur to people at any age above puberty. Having said that it does not automatically follow that the GP is "mature", it just means they have learnt one particular lesson. There are good reasons to have dress codes (eg: friend and foe situations, group identity) but there are also good reasons for dressing "wierd", eg: to draw attention towards/away from something/someone, unmasks zenophobes, diagonse geriatric myopia...
With the recruitment problems they are having I thought even Corporal Klinger would be welcome.
I have been trying to locate a decent manual for my Roman Charriot. I mean when they were published they were chiseled into rock, ya think they last, but nooooo people just make footpaths out of them...., Mercedes, you insenitive clod.
You must either be young or failed to pay attention in your youth. We are going back to the 50's & 60's with censorship at the moment but up until 9/11 we were going forward.
Yes, the Chineese may do what the US wants and revalue it's curency upwards by 40%, but what if instead of floating it they pegged it to the Euro at the same time?