I think the best hopes are for dual-mode-transport, that is, vehicles that can drive both on normal roads -and- on special-purpose tracks of some sort. em.
Actually, the most efficient method of moving freight has been shown to be rail for long distance with trucking for shorter distance. Containers off-loaded from ships, and transported by rail to regional depots, say every 500 miles. There they are transferred to truck for the final destination (upto 250 mile radius). Since large cities would be the regional depots, and they also receive most of the shipments, most truck delivery would be very short-haul.
This is the system used in most other countries than the US.
ps. I know that things like barges can be more efficient than rail, at least if moving down river, however, most of the US does not have access to waterways that could support barges.
DUI should carry a one-year mandatory jail sentence. Don't want to get busted? Don't fucking drink and drive.
I agree with you. But please, the punishment after the killed innocents are brought back to life.
Geez, when I read people like you I wonder whether you are aware why dunk driving is forbidden. Just to make money for the state? To fill jails? For fun? If this is the case in your country your proposal is perfectly fine. In mine a number of ppl. is killed every year because of drunks behind a wheel. I would prefer a solution, which prevents those deaths.
Statistically more people are in accidents where another motorist lost control from the snow and ice than by drunk drivers, but we don't make it illegal for people to drive in snow and ice.
Do you realize that if every car had an interlock, your friend would still be alive?
Do you really not recognize that?
I'm lucky enough to not know any immediate friends or family that have been victims of drunk driving. But I would never want to see them die or get hurt while doing nothing wrong on the roads.
There is no evidence to support your mean spirited position. First, an interlock may keep a car from starting, but what setting would you use on it? Any alcohol? Better not drink orange juice, because fruit juice can contain.5% alcohol through natural fermentation. What about.02? Then anybody who had 1 drink in the last hour couldn't drive. Go all the way up to.08? Then, that last beer I had and left immediately afterward, but didn't raise me from.075 to.08 will still allow me to drive drunk with an interlock, at least the kind the article is talking about. (Most DUI interlocks do not allow any alcohol).
The problem is with a mandatory interlock on every car, will only stop the really drunk people, who statistically aren't the most dangerous ones to others. Like the TSA, it will cost a lot of money but only give the perception of safety.
So we should wait until people are dead, and punish the culprits, rather than try to prevent the deaths in the first place?
Short answer yes. Nobody would argue that anybody who purchases a gun should fined and imprisoned because they might walk up to a political rally and start shooting. Why then should somebody who has been drinking and driving, but has not caused any damage to property or others be punished just because they might do it?
Absolutely. Drunk driving isn't close to the leading cause of preventable deaths, but I think that it's rather easily preventable. Just man up and institute real penalties for that. First offense, considerable fine, second time, permanent revocation of driving license.
I don't get the apparent sympathy towards drunk drivers. It's easy not to drive drunk. People who can't control themselves and do drive drunk are a danger, and need to be treated accordingly, as in not letting them drive. I'm aware that there are countries with lots of cars, the US first and foremost, and where cars are hugely important in some regions. To that I say, the people who really need cars still have a duty to use them responsibly. If they can't, they need to find an alternative.
There is no sympathy towards drunk driving. However, it is the only law on the books that gives you criminal penalties because of the potential to do harm to others instead of actually doing harm. If you drive home drunk, and nobody is injured, and there is no property damage, what is the justification of the penalties you propose?
Drunk driving penalties should figure in on the damage/sentence when there is actual damage, not just because there is a potential that there might be harm done.
If the court can order you to pay for an ignition interlock after a DUI, then it can sure as hell order you to sell your car, period.
Unless you are in bankruptcy court, the court (really the state) cannot force you to sell your personal property. One of those funny constitutional things, you know.
Call me stupid but how is this an invasion of privacy, it's not like information regarding your drunkenness is being passed over to the authorities.
Mark Hinkle, chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, fears the devices could evolve like seat belts — introduced as voluntary safety features that become lawfully enforced.
Oh yes those evil seat belts made mandatory because they save peoples lives, damn evil big government regulating car safety . Has it come to the point where there has to be a knee-jerk reaction to everything just for the sake of it?
Seat belts are a passive restraint system. This device is not passive.
Advocacy groups eventually have to drift from their original purpose to one of organizational perseverance. They need to stay relevant to stay in existence. One common way they do that is to run around crying out the sky is falling. Keep people alarmed and your organization will still be perceived as needed. MADD, is no different.
Which is FAR FAR FAR more than the number of deaths you can attribute to terrorists....
Hysteria certainly describes TSA and Homeland security.
Given the resources being allocated to reducing drunk driving (compared to TSA and Homeland security) I'd say it is better spent.
Most likely though at this point it would not be unreasonable to start looking at just making all cars and passengers safer regardless of whether there is any alcohol involved as there are more potential lives saved that way.
Just think of how safe you could design an automobile if you directed half of the TSA / Homeland security budget into R&D.
A much simpler and cheaper approach to adding more technology to cars is to lower the speed limits. Lower speed limits give more time to react, both for the driver and others. It also lowers fatalities, saves fuel, saves wear and tear on the pavements (which means lower road maintenance costs) and lowers CO2 emissions.
Talk to any highway patrol man/woman and they will tell you that excessive speed is the cause of most accidents and fatalities (and that does not mean going over the speed limit).
>If cars are still able to be crashed in 10 years, I think something has gone wrong.
No kidding. We got totally ripped out of flying cars, the least we should get in return is self-driving autos.
One major problem -- until you can control the unexpected, animals darting into the road, black ice, tire failure, etc. self-driving autos won't eliminate crashes. Most accidents, according to the reports still involve something outside the control of the driver.
It shows the importance, the authors say, of training teachers well before they step into the class
Actually, somewhere around the 1960s-1970s, most states adopted a notion of having colleges offer education majors and required teaching certificates. The idea being to teach teachers how to teach. Unfortunately, they were taught how to teach, but not what to teach. I was lucky in high school. My math teacher had a degree in Math, my chemistry teacher was working on her dissertation in Chemistry.
Now, though, math and science majors are not allowed to teach in schools, unless they posses a teaching certificate, which usually is an additional 60 hours of credit work. It seems that we as a country would be better served if teachers were required to major in some subject matter and take a couple of courses, like a minor, in managing the classroom, etc. Maybe then, we wouldn't have biology teachers unsure of things like evolution.
Why do you think that an autistic child cannot be savvy enough to cheat? There is a large range of autism, some people with autism are capable of functioning independently in society. We do not know what level of autism this child has. It is even possible that this child would not technically be considered autistic but is merely suffering Asperger's syndorme and the article simplified it to "autistic".
I'm not saying that an autistic child isn't savvy enough to cheat. I'm just pointing out that everybody is ignoring that part of the story and it is quite possible that an autistic child did not cheat, but because of the way he/she views the world was able to play the game in a way that was unexpected and advantageous thus giving the appearance of cheating.
Case in point, my son who is autistic figured out how to beat Chessmaster 3000 (I think that was the version). How, because his view of game is different than who the game was marketed to. Therefore, the logic was not able to prevent him from winning, because the actual game engine wasn't sophisticated enough to deal with it. By the way, after notifying the company, they promptly thanked us and revamped their engine to prevent it an similar holes in the logic. All I am saying by this is that some would say that he cheated, by exploiting a hole in the game, yet it was through his autism that the hole was even found.
I do not know the individual involved in this article, however, is it not a possibility that his autism led to a style of play that was a) successful and b) appeared to be a cheat?
They better not let them play bridge or any other card game, either. Because whoever wins the bid is able to declare trump and gives instruction to other palyers -- mimicking the organization of a gang.
Better not let them go to church or prayer groups, because that, too, is an organized group that follows a leader, mimicking the organization of a gang.
No, instead, let's keep them all couped up, doing nothing so they get frustrated and take that frustration out on each other or the guards. That won't be mimicking a gang, just gang warfare. A much better solution.
So we're just supposed to believe the person who banned him without any details. Is twitter now a reliable source?
He sent the details to the parents. Those are the only people he has to convince. Whiny mouth breathers on/. demanding that MS provide proof are not on his list of people he has to convince or impress.
No, he tweeted that he sent the details to his parents. There is a difference and when did Twitter become the official response media for Microsoft? It seems if there could be some legal repercussions that surely the attorneys at Microsoft would advise the marketing department not to be tweeting on this. The only thing tweets are good for is proving the plaintiffs points.
Your post, and everybody else's ignores the fact that this child suffers from autism. Is Microsoft really claiming that an autistic child is savy enough to actually cheat? This child is not some kid hacking the system. Granted, his brain works differently than others, and that may give him an advantage in the game, but is that really cheating?
Modern history is full of people who have various mental afflictions, but can do some pretty astounding things. Is it possible that this is another one of those? And, if it turns out that he did cheat, what does it say of online gaming that an autistic child can cheat such a system--maybe Microsoft should hire him to find out how its done and to prevent it in the future.
From TFA summary: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in October that vehicle-to-vehicle warning systems could address nearly 80 percent of reported crashes not involving drunk drivers."
Why does the NHTSA go out of their way to exclude drunk drivers? They won't benefit at all from this system? Really?
Because the NHTSA knows that the percentage of multi-vehicle accidents involving drunk drivers is significantly smaller than the public thinks it is (most drunk driver accidents are single vehicle accidents -- ie the drunk driver goes off the road).
And of course, "addressing" nearly 80 percent of reported crashes does not mean eliminating or preventing 80 percent of reported crashes. One could also legitimately argue that by lowering the speed limit, one would also address the same crashes by giving drivers more time to react.
I assume you mean they passed the CPA exam six months after graduating. Just passing the exam doesn't make you a CPA. Most states (yes, CPAs are licensed and regulated by State Boards of Accountancy) have a requirement that you pass the exam AND have two years of experience (working for a CPA) before you can hold yourself out as a CPA.
To sit for the exam, at least for the past 15 years, requires 150 credit hours. An undergrad is only 120 (again some states may accept less, but most do not).
It is not unusual for any business major to intern between junior and senior year with the hopes of getting hired on by that firm, so that really has nothing to do with it, either.
How long ago was that? To sit for the CPA exam, now, you need the equivelant of a 5 year accounting program. It's been that way for the past 15 years. While it is true that some states (CPAs are regulated by their State's Board of Accountancy), don't have an experience requirement, most of them do and it is two years. You may have past the CPA exam prior to that, but you cannot legally hold yourself out as a CPA until the experience requirement AND exam are passed.
But this "case" isn't about anything over there. It is about something in the US, where the only professional credential is the CPA. As such, any comments are opinions about the effectiveness of CAs vs CPAs is a mute point as there are no CAs over here.
The only reason to intervene in this natural course of events is nationalistic, the desire to make Americans as a people better paid than their counterparts elsewhere.
Not quite. The only reason to intervene in this unnatural course of events is to keep American and it's citizens from becoming a third world country. America has already lost it's manufacturing base, it has lost or is losing it's research and technology base and there aren't enough agricultural jobs to support it's citizenry.
Look at Japan after WWII. It rebuilt its economy from the ground up. Japanese businesses were willing to forgo short term profits for long term prosperity. During the same time period, US businesses started to maximize short term profits erroneously thinking they were the only players in town.
A lot of people got rich in the 80s and 90s following this thought process. They didn't do it by producing anything, not even research. They did it by buying up profitable companies, splitting them up and selling the pieces for more than the whole.
Choose to invest in the long term and the board of directors will find somebody else to run the company.
To sum it up, short term greed won out over long term prosperity.
America is losing it's edge in innovation, but it has nothing to do with engineers and scientists not getting any respect. There are two sources of research dollars -- government and private sector. Government has been cutting back, except in key areas. It is hard to get government funding for research, particularly with such a huge deficit.
On the other hand, private funding of research has all but dried up. This has been going on for a number of years. Why? Because business, today, is all about making a quick buck. Research may or may not pay off. Why invest millions in something that may or may not prove profitable, when for the same amount of money, you can purchase another business, carve it up and sell the pieces for a profit.
With calls for smaller government, it doesn't look likely that research dollars will be increasing any time soon. In the current business climate, it also doesn't look like the private sector will step up to the plate and risk anything.
This isn't something new, it's been going on since the 1980s.
Actually, $1.00 salaries are very common. Very often, you need to be an employee for various insurance to apply. Paying somebody a $1 salary qualifies them for workmans comp, health insurance, all sorts of liability insurance, etc. It is a way of showing an employer/employee relationship.
CPA's aren't very smart, that's what CA's are for.
But in all seriousness, CPA is a really easy designation to get. I've got friends who have done both (due to working in firms who were CPA, and CA only), and the CPA is a piece of cake compared to the CA. So, the CPA is far less a symbol of being good at accounting than the CA is. Though I hear it's a little different in the US.
Anyone care to shed some light? Particularly if you're originally from a commonwealth country.
Ummm, since this is a US tax case, the following applies: In the United States, CPAs are five year programs, then passing the unified CPA exam, then a minimum of 2 years experience. That's the equivalent of a Master Degree in Accounting, so unless a CA is the equivalent of a CPA, then I doubt that CPAs aren't very smart and CAs are more technical.
Saying VB.Net is dead is akin to saying that C# is dead. Which makes virtually no sense.
So long as Microsoft continues developing the.Net framework, there will be a VB.Net and C#, along with all the other.Net languages.
-Rick
Personally, I'm waiting for Android.net as that seems to be the new platform everyone is wanting to develop for. And, if that is true, that most new jobs being created will be Android related, then, actually VB.Net and C#.Net are dead, unless Microsoft is going to port.Net to Android.
Of course,.Net will be around for a long, long time. Look how long ago COBOL "died" and yet there is still a strong demand for COBOL programmers.
Have you noticed that this radio executive has unilaterally expanded the definition of "piracy" to include recording a broadcast? He's just overturned the Betamax Case. Note the progression here: from piracy = mass producing copyrighted material for unlicensed sale (1980's) to piracy = copying a single recording from the Internet (2000's) to piracy = legally protected fair use (2011).
Yes, I know this story is from the U.K. where the laws are different, but I would be very surprised if taping a signal from the public airwaves is illegal there.
"Piracy" as used by music executives is becoming a buzzword with no meaning other than "people deciding to listen to music without buying it."
All of what you say is true, however, there is one wrinkle that the betamax case did not address. Recording a show, say from ABC over the airwaves, is legal, per Betamax, however, recording a show from ABC over your cable provider is not covered as it is not broadcasted to your home. The situation gets even murkier if your cable and internet are the same thing. So relying on Betamax is not an open and shut defense.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the best hopes are for dual-mode-transport, that is, vehicles that can drive both on normal roads -and- on special-purpose tracks of some sort. em.
Actually, the most efficient method of moving freight has been shown to be rail for long distance with trucking for shorter distance. Containers off-loaded from ships, and transported by rail to regional depots, say every 500 miles. There they are transferred to truck for the final destination (upto 250 mile radius). Since large cities would be the regional depots, and they also receive most of the shipments, most truck delivery would be very short-haul.
This is the system used in most other countries than the US.
ps. I know that things like barges can be more efficient than rail, at least if moving down river, however, most of the US does not have access to waterways that could support barges.
DUI should carry a one-year mandatory jail sentence. Don't want to get busted? Don't fucking drink and drive.
I agree with you. But please, the punishment after the killed innocents are brought back to life.
Geez, when I read people like you I wonder whether you are aware why dunk driving is forbidden. Just to make money for the state? To fill jails? For fun? If this is the case in your country your proposal is perfectly fine. In mine a number of ppl. is killed every year because of drunks behind a wheel. I would prefer a solution, which prevents those deaths.
Statistically more people are in accidents where another motorist lost control from the snow and ice than by drunk drivers, but we don't make it illegal for people to drive in snow and ice.
Do you realize that if every car had an interlock, your friend would still be alive?
Do you really not recognize that?
I'm lucky enough to not know any immediate friends or family that have been victims of drunk driving. But I would never want to see them die or get hurt while doing nothing wrong on the roads.
There is no evidence to support your mean spirited position. First, an interlock may keep a car from starting, but what setting would you use on it? Any alcohol? Better not drink orange juice, because fruit juice can contain .5% alcohol through natural fermentation. What about .02? Then anybody who had 1 drink in the last hour couldn't drive. Go all the way up to .08? Then, that last beer I had and left immediately afterward, but didn't raise me from .075 to .08 will still allow me to drive drunk with an interlock, at least the kind the article is talking about. (Most DUI interlocks do not allow any alcohol).
The problem is with a mandatory interlock on every car, will only stop the really drunk people, who statistically aren't the most dangerous ones to others. Like the TSA, it will cost a lot of money but only give the perception of safety.
So we should wait until people are dead, and punish the culprits, rather than try to prevent the deaths in the first place?
Short answer yes. Nobody would argue that anybody who purchases a gun should fined and imprisoned because they might walk up to a political rally and start shooting. Why then should somebody who has been drinking and driving, but has not caused any damage to property or others be punished just because they might do it?
Absolutely. Drunk driving isn't close to the leading cause of preventable deaths, but I think that it's rather easily preventable. Just man up and institute real penalties for that. First offense, considerable fine, second time, permanent revocation of driving license.
I don't get the apparent sympathy towards drunk drivers. It's easy not to drive drunk. People who can't control themselves and do drive drunk are a danger, and need to be treated accordingly, as in not letting them drive. I'm aware that there are countries with lots of cars, the US first and foremost, and where cars are hugely important in some regions. To that I say, the people who really need cars still have a duty to use them responsibly. If they can't, they need to find an alternative.
There is no sympathy towards drunk driving. However, it is the only law on the books that gives you criminal penalties because of the potential to do harm to others instead of actually doing harm. If you drive home drunk, and nobody is injured, and there is no property damage, what is the justification of the penalties you propose?
Drunk driving penalties should figure in on the damage/sentence when there is actual damage, not just because there is a potential that there might be harm done.
If the court can order you to pay for an ignition interlock after a DUI, then it can sure as hell order you to sell your car, period.
Unless you are in bankruptcy court, the court (really the state) cannot force you to sell your personal property. One of those funny constitutional things, you know.
Call me stupid but how is this an invasion of privacy, it's not like information regarding your drunkenness is being passed over to the authorities.
Mark Hinkle, chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, fears the devices could evolve like seat belts — introduced as voluntary safety features that become lawfully enforced.
Oh yes those evil seat belts made mandatory because they save peoples lives, damn evil big government regulating car safety . Has it come to the point where there has to be a knee-jerk reaction to everything just for the sake of it?
Seat belts are a passive restraint system. This device is not passive.
Advocacy groups eventually have to drift from their original purpose to one of organizational perseverance. They need to stay relevant to stay in existence. One common way they do that is to run around crying out the sky is falling. Keep people alarmed and your organization will still be perceived as needed. MADD, is no different.
Yes, but, there are 9000 est. deaths a year...
Which is FAR FAR FAR more than the number of deaths you can attribute to terrorists ....
Hysteria certainly describes TSA and Homeland security.
Given the resources being allocated to reducing drunk driving (compared to TSA and Homeland security) I'd say it is better spent.
Most likely though at this point it would not be unreasonable to start looking at just making all cars and passengers safer regardless of whether there is any alcohol involved as there are more potential lives saved that way.
Just think of how safe you could design an automobile if you directed half of the TSA / Homeland security budget into R&D.
A much simpler and cheaper approach to adding more technology to cars is to lower the speed limits. Lower speed limits give more time to react, both for the driver and others. It also lowers fatalities, saves fuel, saves wear and tear on the pavements (which means lower road maintenance costs) and lowers CO2 emissions.
Talk to any highway patrol man/woman and they will tell you that excessive speed is the cause of most accidents and fatalities (and that does not mean going over the speed limit).
>If cars are still able to be crashed in 10 years, I think something has gone wrong.
No kidding. We got totally ripped out of flying cars, the least we should get in return is self-driving autos.
One major problem -- until you can control the unexpected, animals darting into the road, black ice, tire failure, etc. self-driving autos won't eliminate crashes. Most accidents, according to the reports still involve something outside the control of the driver.
It shows the importance, the authors say, of training teachers well before they step into the class
Actually, somewhere around the 1960s-1970s, most states adopted a notion of having colleges offer education majors and required teaching certificates. The idea being to teach teachers how to teach. Unfortunately, they were taught how to teach, but not what to teach. I was lucky in high school. My math teacher had a degree in Math, my chemistry teacher was working on her dissertation in Chemistry.
Now, though, math and science majors are not allowed to teach in schools, unless they posses a teaching certificate, which usually is an additional 60 hours of credit work. It seems that we as a country would be better served if teachers were required to major in some subject matter and take a couple of courses, like a minor, in managing the classroom, etc. Maybe then, we wouldn't have biology teachers unsure of things like evolution.
Why do you think that an autistic child cannot be savvy enough to cheat? There is a large range of autism, some people with autism are capable of functioning independently in society. We do not know what level of autism this child has. It is even possible that this child would not technically be considered autistic but is merely suffering Asperger's syndorme and the article simplified it to "autistic".
I'm not saying that an autistic child isn't savvy enough to cheat. I'm just pointing out that everybody is ignoring that part of the story and it is quite possible that an autistic child did not cheat, but because of the way he/she views the world was able to play the game in a way that was unexpected and advantageous thus giving the appearance of cheating.
Case in point, my son who is autistic figured out how to beat Chessmaster 3000 (I think that was the version). How, because his view of game is different than who the game was marketed to. Therefore, the logic was not able to prevent him from winning, because the actual game engine wasn't sophisticated enough to deal with it. By the way, after notifying the company, they promptly thanked us and revamped their engine to prevent it an similar holes in the logic. All I am saying by this is that some would say that he cheated, by exploiting a hole in the game, yet it was through his autism that the hole was even found.
I do not know the individual involved in this article, however, is it not a possibility that his autism led to a style of play that was a) successful and b) appeared to be a cheat?
They better not let them play bridge or any other card game, either. Because whoever wins the bid is able to declare trump and gives instruction to other palyers -- mimicking the organization of a gang.
Better not let them go to church or prayer groups, because that, too, is an organized group that follows a leader, mimicking the organization of a gang.
No, instead, let's keep them all couped up, doing nothing so they get frustrated and take that frustration out on each other or the guards. That won't be mimicking a gang, just gang warfare. A much better solution.
So we're just supposed to believe the person who banned him without any details. Is twitter now a reliable source?
He sent the details to the parents. Those are the only people he has to convince. Whiny mouth breathers on /. demanding that MS provide proof are not on his list of people he has to convince or impress.
No, he tweeted that he sent the details to his parents. There is a difference and when did Twitter become the official response media for Microsoft? It seems if there could be some legal repercussions that surely the attorneys at Microsoft would advise the marketing department not to be tweeting on this. The only thing tweets are good for is proving the plaintiffs points.
Your post, and everybody else's ignores the fact that this child suffers from autism. Is Microsoft really claiming that an autistic child is savy enough to actually cheat? This child is not some kid hacking the system. Granted, his brain works differently than others, and that may give him an advantage in the game, but is that really cheating?
Modern history is full of people who have various mental afflictions, but can do some pretty astounding things. Is it possible that this is another one of those? And, if it turns out that he did cheat, what does it say of online gaming that an autistic child can cheat such a system--maybe Microsoft should hire him to find out how its done and to prevent it in the future.
From TFA summary: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in October that vehicle-to-vehicle warning systems could address nearly 80 percent of reported crashes not involving drunk drivers."
Why does the NHTSA go out of their way to exclude drunk drivers? They won't benefit at all from this system? Really?
Because the NHTSA knows that the percentage of multi-vehicle accidents involving drunk drivers is significantly smaller than the public thinks it is (most drunk driver accidents are single vehicle accidents -- ie the drunk driver goes off the road).
And of course, "addressing" nearly 80 percent of reported crashes does not mean eliminating or preventing 80 percent of reported crashes. One could also legitimately argue that by lowering the speed limit, one would also address the same crashes by giving drivers more time to react.
I assume you mean they passed the CPA exam six months after graduating. Just passing the exam doesn't make you a CPA. Most states (yes, CPAs are licensed and regulated by State Boards of Accountancy) have a requirement that you pass the exam AND have two years of experience (working for a CPA) before you can hold yourself out as a CPA.
To sit for the exam, at least for the past 15 years, requires 150 credit hours. An undergrad is only 120 (again some states may accept less, but most do not).
It is not unusual for any business major to intern between junior and senior year with the hopes of getting hired on by that firm, so that really has nothing to do with it, either.
How long ago was that? To sit for the CPA exam, now, you need the equivelant of a 5 year accounting program. It's been that way for the past 15 years. While it is true that some states (CPAs are regulated by their State's Board of Accountancy), don't have an experience requirement, most of them do and it is two years. You may have past the CPA exam prior to that, but you cannot legally hold yourself out as a CPA until the experience requirement AND exam are passed.
But this "case" isn't about anything over there. It is about something in the US, where the only professional credential is the CPA. As such, any comments are opinions about the effectiveness of CAs vs CPAs is a mute point as there are no CAs over here.
The only reason to intervene in this natural course of events is nationalistic, the desire to make Americans as a people better paid than their counterparts elsewhere.
Not quite. The only reason to intervene in this unnatural course of events is to keep American and it's citizens from becoming a third world country. America has already lost it's manufacturing base, it has lost or is losing it's research and technology base and there aren't enough agricultural jobs to support it's citizenry.
Look at Japan after WWII. It rebuilt its economy from the ground up. Japanese businesses were willing to forgo short term profits for long term prosperity. During the same time period, US businesses started to maximize short term profits erroneously thinking they were the only players in town.
A lot of people got rich in the 80s and 90s following this thought process. They didn't do it by producing anything, not even research. They did it by buying up profitable companies, splitting them up and selling the pieces for more than the whole.
Choose to invest in the long term and the board of directors will find somebody else to run the company.
To sum it up, short term greed won out over long term prosperity.
America is losing it's edge in innovation, but it has nothing to do with engineers and scientists not getting any respect. There are two sources of research dollars -- government and private sector. Government has been cutting back, except in key areas. It is hard to get government funding for research, particularly with such a huge deficit.
On the other hand, private funding of research has all but dried up. This has been going on for a number of years. Why? Because business, today, is all about making a quick buck. Research may or may not pay off. Why invest millions in something that may or may not prove profitable, when for the same amount of money, you can purchase another business, carve it up and sell the pieces for a profit.
With calls for smaller government, it doesn't look likely that research dollars will be increasing any time soon. In the current business climate, it also doesn't look like the private sector will step up to the plate and risk anything.
This isn't something new, it's been going on since the 1980s.
Actually, $1.00 salaries are very common. Very often, you need to be an employee for various insurance to apply. Paying somebody a $1 salary qualifies them for workmans comp, health insurance, all sorts of liability insurance, etc. It is a way of showing an employer/employee relationship.
CPA's aren't very smart, that's what CA's are for.
But in all seriousness, CPA is a really easy designation to get. I've got friends who have done both (due to working in firms who were CPA, and CA only), and the CPA is a piece of cake compared to the CA. So, the CPA is far less a symbol of being good at accounting than the CA is. Though I hear it's a little different in the US.
Anyone care to shed some light? Particularly if you're originally from a commonwealth country.
Ummm, since this is a US tax case, the following applies: In the United States, CPAs are five year programs, then passing the unified CPA exam, then a minimum of 2 years experience. That's the equivalent of a Master Degree in Accounting, so unless a CA is the equivalent of a CPA, then I doubt that CPAs aren't very smart and CAs are more technical.
90% of the people in China do not have a computer. So Microsoft's 90% is really 9% of the people in China do not pay for their Microsoft Software.
You do realise that VB.Net != VB, correct?
Saying VB.Net is dead is akin to saying that C# is dead. Which makes virtually no sense.
So long as Microsoft continues developing the .Net framework, there will be a VB.Net and C#, along with all the other .Net languages.
-Rick
Personally, I'm waiting for Android.net as that seems to be the new platform everyone is wanting to develop for. And, if that is true, that most new jobs being created will be Android related, then, actually VB.Net and C#.Net are dead, unless Microsoft is going to port .Net to Android.
Of course, .Net will be around for a long, long time. Look how long ago COBOL "died" and yet there is still a strong demand for COBOL programmers.
Have you noticed that this radio executive has unilaterally expanded the definition of "piracy" to include recording a broadcast? He's just overturned the Betamax Case. Note the progression here: from piracy = mass producing copyrighted material for unlicensed sale (1980's) to piracy = copying a single recording from the Internet (2000's) to piracy = legally protected fair use (2011).
Yes, I know this story is from the U.K. where the laws are different, but I would be very surprised if taping a signal from the public airwaves is illegal there.
"Piracy" as used by music executives is becoming a buzzword with no meaning other than "people deciding to listen to music without buying it."
All of what you say is true, however, there is one wrinkle that the betamax case did not address. Recording a show, say from ABC over the airwaves, is legal, per Betamax, however, recording a show from ABC over your cable provider is not covered as it is not broadcasted to your home. The situation gets even murkier if your cable and internet are the same thing. So relying on Betamax is not an open and shut defense.