> Now I won't have to ignore my telephone when it rings
Don't start picking up your phone quite yet. The article says "Charities, surveys and calls on behalf of politicians would be exempt".
Think about it... If they outlawed all radio advertising except your business wouldn't you do more radio advertising? I mean, all of the "clutter" would be gone, and your message would be more effective. In this case, people will be generally less ticked off about unsolicited calls so they will be more likely to talk to a caller.
And the word "surveys" is a loophole so big you could drive a truck through it.
"Hello sir, we are doing a survey to find out how many people would shop at K-Mart if CDs were on sale for $12.99."
> Is the shuttle, or the International Space Station
> for that matter, useful? Or just payola to aerospace
> interests and a means for keeping Russian rocket
> scientists employed?"
Even if it's true, what's wrong with that?
If you are making a list of Pros and Cons about the space program, "keeping qualified but unemployed people from working for the bad guys" definitely belongs on the Pro list. Access to space, just like nuclear weapons, is something that not all countries have. And it's something that we don't want our enemies to have.
The "payola" thing is just plain stupid. It's a blatantly loaded word that doesn't even describe what he is trying to say. (Payola is a bribe, or an extorted payment. How does that apply here?)
If the aerospace industry is important to national security -- which it unquestionably is -- then so what if the space program is a "subsidy"? It's part of a much larger, overall equation that Congress has to keep in balance. That belongs on the Pro list too.
People who argue that the space program is "too expensive" and "not paying off" don't understand basic economics. The race to the moon didn't really pay off when we landed in 1969. It paid off in the 90s when microchips changed everything.
> a very long shot, a collision with
> some space junk.
Or a meteor. And it's not such a long shot. Shuttles get hit by small objects every time they go up.
It will be interesting to learn whether or not NASA finds anything among the debris that is not part of a shuttle. Of course people must be turning in all kinds of earthbound junk they find that they think might be part of Columbia...
> people who cannot manage their own finances may
> not be good employees, or that those with
> troublesome credit may be more likely to steal
> from the company.
My apologies to the original poster but, in general, I agree with those points. Of course if credit problems are found the prospective employee should be given the opportunity to explain special circumstances. An extended illness can result in a bankruptcy, for example. But overall I don't think investigating a prospective employee's credit history is any more out of line than investigating their arrest record. It provides information about a person's past performance, which is (more often than not) an excellent predictor of future performance.
If you were hiring somebody to manage your store would you be more concerned with a recent mortgage default or a salary lien for failure to pay child support, or a recent arrest for littering?
To some extent it probably depends on the job. For example I would not expect a grocery store to perform a credit check before hiring a new bagger. But I would expect them to check out the credit history of the new bookkeeper. Wouldn't you worry if the person who handles all of your money is up to their ears in credit card debt? What's the difference between that and somebody who has to manage a departmental budget, or somebody who will be responsible for a large inventory, or somebody who requires an expensive set of tools, or...?
If I am hiring a driver, I want to know about their driving record. If I am hiring a doctor I want to know about previous malpractice suits. And if I am hiring somebody who will be responsible for some of my company's resources, I want to know how well they manage their own.
Good judgement is good judgement. I think there are many ways to measure a person, and their credit history can be a legitimate yardstick.
Slashdot Mirror
> Now I won't have to ignore my telephone when it rings
Don't start picking up your phone quite yet. The article says "Charities, surveys and calls on behalf of politicians would be exempt".
Think about it... If they outlawed all radio advertising except your business wouldn't you do more radio advertising? I mean, all of the "clutter" would be gone, and your message would be more effective. In this case, people will be generally less ticked off about unsolicited calls so they will be more likely to talk to a caller.
And the word "surveys" is a loophole so big you could drive a truck through it.
"Hello sir, we are doing a survey to find out how many people would shop at K-Mart if CDs were on sale for $12.99."
Many cosmologists call the Big Crunch the Gnab Gib.
> Whew! That's a relief!
Reminds me of the story of the student of cosmology who frantically waved his hand until the annoyed professor finally called on him.
"Professor, would you mind repeating what you just said about the end of the universe?"
"I said that according to recent estimates it would take place in about 200 billion years."
"Oh, thank God, you really had me worried there for a minute! I though you said million!
> Slick and Sexy, But Not Without Issues That reminds me, I need to call my ex.
> Is the shuttle, or the International Space Station
> for that matter, useful? Or just payola to aerospace
> interests and a means for keeping Russian rocket
> scientists employed?"
Even if it's true, what's wrong with that?
If you are making a list of Pros and Cons about the space program, "keeping qualified but unemployed people from working for the bad guys" definitely belongs on the Pro list. Access to space, just like nuclear weapons, is something that not all countries have. And it's something that we don't want our enemies to have.
The "payola" thing is just plain stupid. It's a blatantly loaded word that doesn't even describe what he is trying to say. (Payola is a bribe, or an extorted payment. How does that apply here?)
If the aerospace industry is important to national security -- which it unquestionably is -- then so what if the space program is a "subsidy"? It's part of a much larger, overall equation that Congress has to keep in balance. That belongs on the Pro list too.
People who argue that the space program is "too expensive" and "not paying off" don't understand basic economics. The race to the moon didn't really pay off when we landed in 1969. It paid off in the 90s when microchips changed everything.
> a very long shot, a collision with
> some space junk.
Or a meteor. And it's not such a long shot. Shuttles get hit by small objects every time they go up.
It will be interesting to learn whether or not NASA finds anything among the debris that is not part of a shuttle. Of course people must be turning in all kinds of earthbound junk they find that they think might be part of Columbia...
> people who cannot manage their own finances may
> not be good employees, or that those with
> troublesome credit may be more likely to steal
> from the company.
My apologies to the original poster but, in general, I agree with those points. Of course if credit problems are found the prospective employee should be given the opportunity to explain special circumstances. An extended illness can result in a bankruptcy, for example. But overall I don't think investigating a prospective employee's credit history is any more out of line than investigating their arrest record. It provides information about a person's past performance, which is (more often than not) an excellent predictor of future performance.
If you were hiring somebody to manage your store would you be more concerned with a recent mortgage default or a salary lien for failure to pay child support, or a recent arrest for littering?
To some extent it probably depends on the job. For example I would not expect a grocery store to perform a credit check before hiring a new bagger. But I would expect them to check out the credit history of the new bookkeeper. Wouldn't you worry if the person who handles all of your money is up to their ears in credit card debt? What's the difference between that and somebody who has to manage a departmental budget, or somebody who will be responsible for a large inventory, or somebody who requires an expensive set of tools, or...?
If I am hiring a driver, I want to know about their driving record. If I am hiring a doctor I want to know about previous malpractice suits. And if I am hiring somebody who will be responsible for some of my company's resources, I want to know how well they manage their own.
Good judgement is good judgement. I think there are many ways to measure a person, and their credit history can be a legitimate yardstick.
> one of the most disgusting scenes I have ever
> seen in a movie: Somebody eating cold noodles
> (ravioli?) directly out of the can.
If that's the most disgusting thing you have ever seen you really need to get out more.
Go see Hannibal.
Or for one of the first digital celebrities, go see The Shining and watch for "Tony".
Wow, they have a commission on everything.