I dunno. I just don't think I'd be happy for what I perceive as the drop in quality of my life if I had to take public transport.
One of the main things would be, the lack of door-to-door service which I get with a car.
I live in New Orleans..and summers here (which really start sometime in early May till early Nov) are swelteringly humid and hot. If you have to walk too far, you and your clothes are drenched in sweat...not to mention on the torrential rain days where many streets flood...etc. You just could not arrive to work looking professional. That and all the extra time going all around town on busses, changing...it would turn a 8-10 min. drive into over an hour or more.
Then..I try to think...how would I buy groceries. I shop on Sundays usually...buy for the whole week on Sun mornings, and spend the rest of the day cooking what will be 95% of my meals for the whole week. How would I get that much stuff on/off public transport (changing busses and the like multiple times) with that many sacks of groceries?
I don't really have time during the week to shop every night and cook every night...not with work and gym in the mix..I do like to have at least a few 'me' hours every evening to do stuff I like at home before bedtime....
The trouble is..the dot com bubble burst just at the end of Clinton...and Bush actually inherited from him, the start of a recession.
If not for the Iraq war....I don't think Bush would have caused much economic turmoil...that was big cause of his debt, not the tax cuts per se. The tax cuts were his stimulus to keep the economy up that he inherited from Clinton, and at the time, would have been more than balanced by the predicted surplus.
So then...there is the dilema. Whose moral compass do you step on? Those against homosexuality, or those for it?
Who is to choose which is right and which is wrong?
I was just stating, so far, the majority of the US seems to be against it.
Me? Frankly I don't give a shit what anyone does...I think the govt should be OUT of the marriage business...and there should be no special rules, taxes/tax breaks, etc just because someone gets married.
Well, for the most part, I'm VERY happy that most of what Obama has wanted to do...has been blocked.
I only wish it could have been done to block the hideous Obamacare act.
I'm actually thankful that they've been blocking him as that he seems to want to drive the country further into debt, and expand the federal govt. more and more.
I'd vote for a small soap dish over Obama, I can't imagine anyone else could be any worse.
There could be quite a spirited debate about affirmative action, but allowing gay marriage is, like, the opposite of pushing your moral agenda on to people.
Why do you say that? Apparently homosexuality is morally wrong to the majority of people in the US, otherwise, it wouldn't have the stigma it does, and gay marriage would be perfectly legal in all 50 states.
The point is that a lot of US politicians happily treat their country as a Christian state when it suits them, and in standard Christianity homosexuality is seen as a bad thing, so therefore the Christian government has to oppose it.
Clearly this is both vile and untrue, but you are the people who vote for these fuckers (I'm not American).
Well, clearly, most of us in the US don't have a problem with the way marriage is defined currently.
If the majority of people wanted to re-define marriage as a legal contract between any couple (or more...why not threesomes?)..then, it would have already been legalized by now.
Simple fact...and since you're not American...well, your opinion on it doesn't really concern us.
I think Obama and the next two or three Presidents are going to be thought of as failures because they couldn't instantly dig the USA out of the hole that Bush tossed it into.
Trouble is...Obama seems to frantically be digging us even DEEPER and deeper into the hole and making it at least twice as bad as it was to begin with....
At this stage it looks like another 4 years of Obama in another gridlocked government.
Anyone but Obama....
However, I don't particularly think 'gridlock' is such a bad thing. Our govt was actually set up to go SLOW, have gridlock and not let things easily pass. When they get too efficient at passing new bills and laws...the US people get the short end of the stick and often lose a bit more of our rights.
Err.....where so far has anything RACIST been mentioned?
I've only seen comments, including the article, saying to avoid violent or dangerous neighborhoods. What's wrong with trying to stay safe? I saw NO mention anywhere of race???
Are YOU saying minority neighborhoods are inherently dangerous? THAT sounds a bit racist to me.....
I'd prefer the majority of my tax dollars...go to my state and local govt....they are more sensitive to my needs and more answerable to me as to how they spend my money.
There are a few things we need the feds for....defense, and some other things on a national level, but the majority should only be the concerns of the local and state levels.
What's good for CA isn't necessarily the best for LA...different climates, needs and lifestyles
Most people gun the accelerator off every stop, try to do 80 in a 55 zone down the freeway...
What do you mean freeways.....I drive that fast on all city and neighborhood streets.
Ok, when small children are around...I slow to 55mph....but otherwise, I generally don't even look at my speedometer unless the radar detector goes off...
Ok..where exactly in the US constitution, is the federal govt mandated to manipulate the citizenries behavior to what the governing officials think is best???
Remember, federal income taxes were basically supposed to be a temporary thing...to fund a war.
When in the laws was it mandated to change behavior? I must have missed that in the US.
This is something fairly new...and I think it sucks.
I have a hard time with that. We live in a world where "because f**k you is why" is the attitude of far too many people
So what?
So you're saying in the constitution the federal govt is somewhere mandated to be 'our brothers keeper'?
Pray tell where is this stated?
The US was founded to give everyone opportunity...to succeed or fail on their own merit...nothing more.
People will help their fellow man...this is shows all the time, look how much the US private citizenry gave to disasters it OTHER countries like when the tsunamis hit...
The govt isn't here to legislate morality...it is to try as much as possible to keep the playing ground fair and open...opportunity, at least on the federal level..is about all it is mandated to do by the constitution.
Taxes are not just to fund government, but to fund society, which is a bit broader in concept.
That's a new concept...remember, the federal income tax is a relatively new thing..and WAS supposed to be temporary. It was to fund the war, etc.
We let it run too long..and now, people are bastardizing it to be used for 'social' purposes. That isn't what it was set up to do in the US. It still shouldn't be. It takes away free will of the people which is supposed to be one thing the US allows people to have. Freedom to act and live..freedom to fail and die if you're an idiot.
When you eat too much in public, you only ruin your health. Smoking in public exposes bystanders to secondhand smoke, a substance which kills tens of thousands of people per year.
No one holds a gun to your head to force you to patronize or work in a bar or casino that allow smoking....free choice and all, eh?
While I agree any public building or enclosed space you HAVE to go to...should not allow smoking, private establishments should not be forced to ban smoking..you have full choice to enter there or not.
When employers go through a stack of resumes to figure who to interview.....MANY of them look first to see if there is a degree...ANY degree, doesn't often matter if it is related to the job you're applying for.
I was helping to interview last year or so for projects I've been on...and you start with a pile and have to quickly scan them a few times to weed down who to call for interviews.
Quite often...no degree...goes in the can right off to bat with no other consideration.
Then, you read parts to try too quickly gather if they have what you need. Many people only read a quick skills list...I tend to read the first (most recent) couple of job descriptions to see if they have been doing the work we're looking for for our position.
Until it comes down to the actual people to be interviewed...do any of the other parts get looked at at all.
If you are flooded with candidates....you can't take time to read fully every resume. I take a pile and spend initially about 1-2 min. tops scanning through them before knowing if I want to look at it later or shit can it.
Honestly...i'd likely never see the volunteer stuff (unless that WAS your last job) till maybe after the interviews and I was having trouble deciding...and would go back to the resumes and look deeper for differences.
Let me also dissuade you from the notion that there is money to be made for someone who has just picked up a 5D MkII and intends on holding down the shutter button until the money starts rolling in. Professional photographers have a name for people like that, and the nicest one is sucker. Simply having an expensive camera won't make you a good photographer. You may turn out shots that get you endless ego fellatio on facebook or flickr, but that doesn't make you money. What makes you money in photography is an excellent grasp of the technical aspects of the craft, and a good solid grounding in the foundation of visual arts. Color theory, composition, and lighting and shadow are the places to start, then its practice practice practice until you can consistently turn out well composed shots with good lighting and balanced colors. All the while, you're constantly working the business end, looking for opportunities, networking in many different industries, advertising, selling yourself, maintaining relationships with old clients, pounding the pavement for new clients, and making sure more dollars roll in than out. Once you get to that level, you're going to see why professionals cringe and roll their eyes when they read posts like yours.
I'm getting the camera for ME first and foremost. I have shot (ages ago) SLR's...so, this will give me a good chance to learn and re-learn things and have fun shooting things.
I'm also wanting it for the pro level HD it takes. I first saw one of these on a comedy short I was shooting with some pros here in New Orleans.
There is a HUGE boom in commercial movie, tv and commericals being shot down here due to the huge tax credits, some are calling it Hollywood South.
I've already been making contacts with people for things to do once I get the camera and some glass.
Hell, the other day on craigslist, there were listing for $600/day for just what you described...set up the camera on a tripod, and 'hold it open' for them to film static interviews and other shots for some commercials, etc.
I'm working on learning my audio/video editing skills too...as well as writing for filming my own stuff. Have I done much of this before? No...but, figured it would be something VERY fun to do (I got hooked after that comedy short shoot I was acting in)...and figured as a sideline to learning and having fun, I might could earn a few bucks on the side....
dSLRs aren't really appropriate for travel, which is precisely why I bought myself a Canon Powershot sx40 HS a while back. I personally love my dSLR and wouldn't trade it for anything, but lugging around 30lbs., worth of gear to make the most of it isn't particularly viable for travel. Well, unless your whole point is going for photography.
You know...I don't know where this complaint comes from.
It wasn't THAT long ago..when pretty much all we had were 33mm film cameras, and no one bitched about carrying a SLR camera and a lens (or maybe two).
Growing up, that's ALL we had.....hell as a kid, I always was asking my Dad to be the one to carry the family camera...finally one year when I was like 19 or so, on a cruise they got me my own..a Nikon FA blackbody..I was thrilled.
That thing lasted through college and a LOT of drunken parties. Those party shots are still with us today.....(hoping someone in there runs for senator so I can remind him of the photos, and get a cushy govt job).
I'd say....save your money, and buy the best DSLR you can afford.
They all have Full Auto settings....so you can start right off using it without 'technical knowledge'.
But over time, you will have the option to play with the settings and learn the tech behind the DSLR and then be able to use one to the fullest extent.
Again, they all have full auto...do that and start experimenting and learn more about photography...make it a learning investment.
Also...more lens options with DSLR and it did sound like that was something he was interested in.
I'm not suggesting you go overboard like I'm saving to do...I'm looking to get a Canon 5D Mark II (unless the Mark III comes out soon and is better). But the lower level Canon DSLR's are all quite nice and a good place to start. I want the 5D so I can have the high end HD video too...wanting to try to shoot pro level stuff. I live in New Orleans, and there is work for people with this camera...so, figure after awhile I can earn some $$ enough to justify such an expense.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the main things would be, the lack of door-to-door service which I get with a car.
I live in New Orleans..and summers here (which really start sometime in early May till early Nov) are swelteringly humid and hot. If you have to walk too far, you and your clothes are drenched in sweat...not to mention on the torrential rain days where many streets flood...etc. You just could not arrive to work looking professional. That and all the extra time going all around town on busses, changing...it would turn a 8-10 min. drive into over an hour or more.
Then..I try to think...how would I buy groceries. I shop on Sundays usually...buy for the whole week on Sun mornings, and spend the rest of the day cooking what will be 95% of my meals for the whole week. How would I get that much stuff on/off public transport (changing busses and the like multiple times) with that many sacks of groceries?
I don't really have time during the week to shop every night and cook every night...not with work and gym in the mix..I do like to have at least a few 'me' hours every evening to do stuff I like at home before bedtime....
Just jump in your car...and a short time later, you're there right where you need to be...easy peasy.
If not for the Iraq war....I don't think Bush would have caused much economic turmoil...that was big cause of his debt, not the tax cuts per se. The tax cuts were his stimulus to keep the economy up that he inherited from Clinton, and at the time, would have been more than balanced by the predicted surplus.
Who is to choose which is right and which is wrong?
I was just stating, so far, the majority of the US seems to be against it.
Me? Frankly I don't give a shit what anyone does...I think the govt should be OUT of the marriage business...and there should be no special rules, taxes/tax breaks, etc just because someone gets married.
I only wish it could have been done to block the hideous Obamacare act.
I'm actually thankful that they've been blocking him as that he seems to want to drive the country further into debt, and expand the federal govt. more and more.
I'd vote for a small soap dish over Obama, I can't imagine anyone else could be any worse.
Why do you say that? Apparently homosexuality is morally wrong to the majority of people in the US, otherwise, it wouldn't have the stigma it does, and gay marriage would be perfectly legal in all 50 states.
Well, clearly, most of us in the US don't have a problem with the way marriage is defined currently.
If the majority of people wanted to re-define marriage as a legal contract between any couple (or more...why not threesomes?)..then, it would have already been legalized by now.
Simple fact...and since you're not American...well, your opinion on it doesn't really concern us.
Trouble is...Obama seems to frantically be digging us even DEEPER and deeper into the hole and making it at least twice as bad as it was to begin with....
Anyone but Obama....
However, I don't particularly think 'gridlock' is such a bad thing. Our govt was actually set up to go SLOW, have gridlock and not let things easily pass. When they get too efficient at passing new bills and laws...the US people get the short end of the stick and often lose a bit more of our rights.
Err.....where so far has anything RACIST been mentioned?
I've only seen comments, including the article, saying to avoid violent or dangerous neighborhoods. What's wrong with trying to stay safe? I saw NO mention anywhere of race???
Are YOU saying minority neighborhoods are inherently dangerous? THAT sounds a bit racist to me.....
There are a few things we need the feds for....defense, and some other things on a national level, but the majority should only be the concerns of the local and state levels.
What's good for CA isn't necessarily the best for LA...different climates, needs and lifestyles
I've never owned a car without a manual transmission...wouldn't want an automatic either, no fun to drive!!!
What do you mean freeways.....I drive that fast on all city and neighborhood streets.
Ok, when small children are around...I slow to 55mph....but otherwise, I generally don't even look at my speedometer unless the radar detector goes off...
And it only cost more because we let it...and we're trying to get the governments to do things that people used to do on their own...
Remember, federal income taxes were basically supposed to be a temporary thing...to fund a war.
When in the laws was it mandated to change behavior? I must have missed that in the US.
This is something fairly new...and I think it sucks.
So what?
So you're saying in the constitution the federal govt is somewhere mandated to be 'our brothers keeper'?
Pray tell where is this stated?
The US was founded to give everyone opportunity...to succeed or fail on their own merit...nothing more.
People will help their fellow man...this is shows all the time, look how much the US private citizenry gave to disasters it OTHER countries like when the tsunamis hit...
The govt isn't here to legislate morality...it is to try as much as possible to keep the playing ground fair and open...opportunity, at least on the federal level..is about all it is mandated to do by the constitution.
That's a new concept...remember, the federal income tax is a relatively new thing..and WAS supposed to be temporary. It was to fund the war, etc.
We let it run too long..and now, people are bastardizing it to be used for 'social' purposes. That isn't what it was set up to do in the US. It still shouldn't be. It takes away free will of the people which is supposed to be one thing the US allows people to have. Freedom to act and live..freedom to fail and die if you're an idiot.
No one holds a gun to your head to force you to patronize or work in a bar or casino that allow smoking....free choice and all, eh?
While I agree any public building or enclosed space you HAVE to go to...should not allow smoking, private establishments should not be forced to ban smoking..you have full choice to enter there or not.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
People should be free to choose to drive and spend in the fashion they wish.
Taxes weren't passed to allow a 'chosen' few to dictate citizen behavior....
And what they're doing....wasn't embarrassing or apparently, illegal.
If I was presented with the same opportunity as those ladies in the story, I'd have jumped on it too.....much like anyone else in the world.
I was helping to interview last year or so for projects I've been on...and you start with a pile and have to quickly scan them a few times to weed down who to call for interviews.
Quite often...no degree...goes in the can right off to bat with no other consideration.
Then, you read parts to try too quickly gather if they have what you need. Many people only read a quick skills list...I tend to read the first (most recent) couple of job descriptions to see if they have been doing the work we're looking for for our position.
Until it comes down to the actual people to be interviewed...do any of the other parts get looked at at all.
If you are flooded with candidates....you can't take time to read fully every resume. I take a pile and spend initially about 1-2 min. tops scanning through them before knowing if I want to look at it later or shit can it.
Honestly...i'd likely never see the volunteer stuff (unless that WAS your last job) till maybe after the interviews and I was having trouble deciding...and would go back to the resumes and look deeper for differences.
That's how I do it...and many others.
I'm getting the camera for ME first and foremost. I have shot (ages ago) SLR's...so, this will give me a good chance to learn and re-learn things and have fun shooting things.
I'm also wanting it for the pro level HD it takes. I first saw one of these on a comedy short I was shooting with some pros here in New Orleans.
There is a HUGE boom in commercial movie, tv and commericals being shot down here due to the huge tax credits, some are calling it Hollywood South.
I've already been making contacts with people for things to do once I get the camera and some glass.
Hell, the other day on craigslist, there were listing for $600/day for just what you described...set up the camera on a tripod, and 'hold it open' for them to film static interviews and other shots for some commercials, etc.
I'm working on learning my audio/video editing skills too...as well as writing for filming my own stuff. Have I done much of this before? No...but, figured it would be something VERY fun to do (I got hooked after that comedy short shoot I was acting in)...and figured as a sideline to learning and having fun, I might could earn a few bucks on the side....
You know...I don't know where this complaint comes from.
It wasn't THAT long ago..when pretty much all we had were 33mm film cameras, and no one bitched about carrying a SLR camera and a lens (or maybe two).
Growing up, that's ALL we had.....hell as a kid, I always was asking my Dad to be the one to carry the family camera...finally one year when I was like 19 or so, on a cruise they got me my own..a Nikon FA blackbody..I was thrilled.
That thing lasted through college and a LOT of drunken parties. Those party shots are still with us today.....(hoping someone in there runs for senator so I can remind him of the photos, and get a cushy govt job).
They all have Full Auto settings....so you can start right off using it without 'technical knowledge'.
But over time, you will have the option to play with the settings and learn the tech behind the DSLR and then be able to use one to the fullest extent.
Again, they all have full auto...do that and start experimenting and learn more about photography...make it a learning investment.
Also...more lens options with DSLR and it did sound like that was something he was interested in.
I'm not suggesting you go overboard like I'm saving to do...I'm looking to get a Canon 5D Mark II (unless the Mark III comes out soon and is better). But the lower level Canon DSLR's are all quite nice and a good place to start. I want the 5D so I can have the high end HD video too...wanting to try to shoot pro level stuff. I live in New Orleans, and there is work for people with this camera...so, figure after awhile I can earn some $$ enough to justify such an expense.
Yeah...but for the amounts of $$ they're likely getting....who wouldn't??