Which is quite possibly why you think pure capitalism is the bee's knees. For those of us who plainly see coercion and see how it is used to proper fuck a multitude of people, that is why we're not all gung ho about pure capitalism and infinitesimal government. Even if you can't see it, you should, at the least, be able to accept that others do, which should allow you to see why they wouldn't be so about unfettered capitalism.
In this case, I'm not asking you to agree that coercion does or does not exist in capitalism: I'm just asking you to agree that other people feel it does exist, and why it subsequently leads them to a different conclusion than your own.
I believe, when he says coercion, he means legal coercion.
What you're talking about is economic coercion. It is clearly different than legal coercion, but can be just as powerful and just as reprehensible in use.
Well here we have a problem. You are seeming to assume that because I do not agree that property rights are an *axiom* that I am willing to agree that all the other rights (treated as axioms) still are not in effect.
To me, liberty has little to do with property, but has much more to do with thought, speech, assembly, press, etc. Property rights are niceties, but I don't hold them to be so important as to claim they are axiomatic to the concept of liberty. I believe that is where we fundamentally differ.
So I suppose I was only being a partial devil's advocate. I'd like to see property protection, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe in property rights. It is in society's best interests that individuals own property that they have amassed through their keen wit and hard work. To remove property for no-good-reason is foolish if you want a prosperous country. But to say property rights are absolute and beyond question - I just don't buy it.
Let's put it this way: I find "freedom zones" and suppression of assembly far more anti-liberty and anti-american than taxation for social programs or civic works. If you pressed me, I'd admit they are both strictly against the current constitution. The former, to me, is unconscionable, whereas the latter, I deem a necessary evil.
This is a specific proof that applies to the individual. Now what about external objects? What about property (physical property; let's not complicate things by including intellectual property).
Actually, I was always discussing sociology. I was discussing economic models and their implementation in reality. You cannot have a reality involving humans without social studies being integral. I guess you missed that part of my previous statement (way up there, when I mentioned "reality"). That was (in my opinion) the important part of my statement. I fear you may have focused on the rest and not on that one part. A communication error, perhaps.
I definitely see what you're saying and I can respect it. However, idealism rarely gets us anywhere. Invariably, ones ideals clash with another's. Then it's a question of struggle.
I, personally, try to avoid ideals, especially fanatic devotion to any ideal. I've seen where zealotry leads, and I have no desire to be there.
I guess my main problem with your position is that you seem to ignore that a large portion of the people feel that social programs (those things you don't feel governments should be in charge of) are important aspects of government. Is not government supposed to reflect the will of the majority of the people? Have they not used their most valued right (the right to vote) to make their voice and opinions heard? Have they not collectively decided that government's role should be expanded beyond protecting interstate commerce and defense?
I'm only surmising here, but I imagine your response would be "their right to define the government they desire is fine, as long as it falls within the boundaries of the constitution, which protects the rights of the minority from the majority". If so, my response to that would be "fair enough, but do you really want to force the issue? If it came down to allowing a federal government with social services, possibly in contradiction of the constitution, or amending the constitution, which do you think will really end up happening?"
I'm only speculating here, but people in our society have gotten used to social programs on some level or another. I cannot imagine an amendment to the constitution allowing the federal government to participate in social programs.
(I apologize if that wasn't going to be your response; feel free to correct me:D)
Or not. I'm quite content ignoring you. After all, I'm not the one taking the fruits of your labor; the government is. That I support them is an indirect assault upon what you consider your person (which you clearly feel property is). That's fine. The point is, when you wish to resolve this by force, the onus is on you to come after me. I already have what I want; it's up to you to go out of your way to stop me.
You'll forgive me if I don't anticipate your coming with any alacrity. Something tells me your bravado only goes to the "submit" button.
I'm saying that you have to prove these things first before you can use them. These are not axioms - at least not in the logical sense. The United States Constitution clearly holds them to be axioms, but as we all well know, the US Constitution is not the defining document on what is and what is not held to be true, universally.
My point is that if we're going to start arguing over who needs to prove what, then fine: we can start at the lowest point first and move on from there.
Maybe we just go further up the chain, then, and you can prove to me why "ownership" is a "good" thing, much less a "right".
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but if you want to split hairs about who has to prove what, let's start at the core of your thesis and move on from there, shall we?
That's actually an excellent question. What is better?
Is it better to have an enlightened society where everyone is in-as-perfect-health as it can be, water is clean, food is always in tip-top shape (no mad cow - ever), every road has a bike lane and a sidewalk beside it, corporate greed is kept in check (there is a difference between prudent business and avarice, after all, though the line is subtle and easy to cross), but where taxes are obscenely high and certain individuals live lives of sloth and excess without working while others labor extensive hours for minimal return?
Or is it better to have a cut-throat society where every road is a toll road, you only attend school if your parents can afford it (otherwise, you start work as soon as you are physically capable), health care only exists for those who can afford it, corporations (or any business, really) runs rampant with greed (and to hell with the costs (industrial waste dumping, etc), but where taxes are low (after all, government need only support a standing army for defense and pay the salaries of the elected representatives), while people who cannot work starve (and their families), or people who will not work starve (and their families), while the most others labor extensive hours for... minimal return (except for a few with something outstanding about them that puts them in the de-facto "Gentlemen/Ladyship" class).
Or something in the middle.
Or maybe something wildly outside either of those, whether we're talking Feudalism or Communism or Socialism or what have you.
I can't tell you what is better and then subsequently prove it, which was (I'm sure) the point of your asking. But I know I do NOT like the sounds of the "way life was" in the 1700's through to the 1930's. Unfortunately, with this sort of thing, we're almost stuck in a situation where we can do nothing but find the "best" way by process of elimination. I'm not sure either of us has that time.
Okay, sure. There are approximately 6 billion people in the world, all with their own particular values and opinions. You could surely collapse some values of certain swathes of people into a group of norms, but we're still talking at least hundreds of thousands of viewpoints, if not millions (depends on how specifically you try to categorize said opinions). Just looking at their books and various other writings, I can easily assume that they did not take into consideration hundreds of thousands of viewpoints. Therefor, they did not take into consideration all of the variables involved in reality.
I do not have to get more specific than that. They may have focused on the most prevalent viewpoints, but to say they considered every last aspect of humanity's individuality and its' effects on the average social viewpoints is patently absurd. The problem is, since everybody is different, the interplay between the individual and the social norm is subtle. The best way to describe the reality of society is to liken it to determining the weather. Chaos theory, perhaps, describes it best.
In essence, Marx and Locke focused on abstracts. The problem is reality has so many specific instantiations of unforseeable behavior that their economic models tend to break down the moment you put them into play with large groups of people. These models then need "fixes" applied, like patches, over time. It's not to say that Locke or Marx were idiots; they were quite intelligent men, regardless of your opinion on their socio-economic models. But to say the abstract models they specified will work flawlessly in society is foolishness. Every model currently in play in the world is an example of that. They were adopted with the purest of intentions, but patch after patch was overlaid upon them to rectify some perceived flaw in some specific case. Then you get American Capitalism, British Capitalism, German Socialism, Vietnamese Communism, Chinese Communism, etc, etc. They're all examples of how these models broke down upon entering society. In an ideal world, no one would want to modify the models at all, and then Locke or Marx's utopia would flourish and everyone would be dancing in the street as they basked in the fruits of their perceived "right way to live" socio-economic model.
But it has never happened and it never will happen, and therein is the entire point I was trying to make.
Oh, and because both you and Thomas Paine feel it is right and true, it has to be taken as gospel truth?
You're basically saying "just because I fervently believe I am right and you are wrong, you should believe me too". You're going to need to prove to me that your way is better than the one we have now.
Take your time, I'll be here to look it over when your proof is complete. Until you do that, please refrain from being so damned self-righteous, mmkay? I'm quite content stating our current way is not the best way. I've yet to see anyone prove to me that their way is, overall, any better.
The main problem is that these things going on under NASA aren't understood by the public. And until someone in NASA can come along and sell them to the average person, all we can do is take your (and other engineers') word for it. Seeing as how you are making money from it (even if it isn't quite enough), the average person has every reason to question you at your word. This is not to say that you are lying, but to say that, despite evidence (and subsequent understanding) to support your word, the average person will doubt you and will otherwise be much happier spending money on education.
All in all, that may not be a bad thing - if spending more money on education makes for a more educated populace. Maybe then they'll understand the things that went on under NASA aside from rockets and spaceships and be more willing to spend money on it. Something tells me it won't quite work out that way, however, but I digress.
I think you're making the assumption that everyone here is against the means used in this situation. Spending money on a mega highway in Alaska is the true definition of pork. Government spending on far reaching projects that otherwise wouldn't be immediately profitable for the business sector is perfectly fine, in my book. Don't assume that just because you think this is pork, everyone else is going to agree with you.
Well, I thought I answered that. Financially, no. Responsibility wise - it taught me more about responsibility than just about anything else has, ever. So, as far as growing as a person goes, it was invaluable. As far as putting money in my wallet - not so much. I probably could've made just as much milking cows and bailing hay.
Ignoring the vast majority of what the other sibling had to say concerning work, you have to understand that to a large part of America, working as a teenager is a necessity. It's their first chance to start seeing what the world is like. You can liken it to letting them ride a bicycle with training wheels; they aren't on their own yet, but they're getting valuable experience at a time when they're legally protected in many ways. This "newbie training zone" sort of effect is incredibly essential in teaching kids the value of hard work for the things they want - no longer do they get handed everything on a silver platter (or at least during birthdays/christmas), but instead they have to labor for the things that are important to them.
I was working since I was 14 - first on a dairy farm, which I was able to reach on my bike (except in the winter, in which case it was better to take a sled), and then my first minimum-wage job at age 16. From 14-16, I saved my money and purchased my car. After that point, I used what money I made to pay obscenely high insurance rates. Financially speaking, I broke even by a few hundred dollars a year, after maintenance, gas, and insurance were included. So you could say that, economically speaking, I got very little benefit from working.
What I did get, however, was an appreciation for what it took to get the things I wanted; that sometimes expensiveToyX was not worth the hours of labor required to afford it.
These sort of lessons are invaluable to a teenager reaching their majority.
If you live in a more urban (or suburban) area, a car may not be essential. Public transportation or good ol' fashioned feet could be perfectly reasonable choices. Easily forgotten, I know, but rural america still exists, and there's still enough people living in it that you need to take it into consideration before you start thinking about how driving isn't that important.
Then that's easy. Put these fake license plates over their teacher's license plates and let them accept the very steep charge.
The point is these things are so laughably easy to abuse that we shouldn't be relying on them. Yes, in an ideal world, people would not be born retarded and feel the need to act like a jackass at any point in their life.
But as we all well know, that is not the case and it's something you need to plan on; when a person has the opportunity of doing the right thing or being antisocial for their own benefit, you better bank on the latter and be pleasantly surprised by the former.
They are the definition of a Church. I see next to no difference between them and the Roman Catholic Church. An organization who suckers people in with platitudes, encouraging them to open their pocketbooks on an ongoing basis, to benefit those at the top?
I donno about that. My father was a coal miner (and still is). My mother stayed at home.
Actually, turns out that I'm the first on either my mother or father's side of the family who completed college. Of the roughly 10 cousins older than I, 3 attended college at the same time or before I. One dropped out to work, another got hooked on smack, and the last just took a long-ass time to figure out what the hell she wanted to do.
Do I sound like your stereotypical child of an affluent white family? My father was making about 28k a year (which is why my FAFSA reaped such huge dividends for me), and at least 1/3 of my family is either addicted to heroin, crack, or cocaine, with one particularly colorful cousin the proud mother of 4 crackbabies.
Needless to say, I don't consort with most of my family any longer.
But, I guess that just because I'm white, it automatically means my family was mega rich and completely adjusted, eh?
no, the assumption is that if you have a degree, there is a higher probability that you can learn or else you wouldn't have made it through university in the first place. depending on what university you are from, the probability increases or decreases.
for those who haven't attended university, the employer basically has no idea. do you know how terribly bad it is to judge someone on, at most, 24 hours worth of day-long contact? this is assuming a rigorous 3 1-day-long interview sessions for that specific person. that's probably more time than most organizations are willing to give (rightly or wrongly).
it's hard to tell after just a few hours and a resume what a person can do. people who do exceptionally well at interviews still bomb out after a few weeks of work. at least if they have a degree that is just one more piece of evidence in their favor. but to claim that that degree says they know everything there is to know about a specific subject (be it Computer Science or Secondary Education or Underwater Basketweaving) is silly. it's even a stretch to claim that what they do know is worth relying on; i've seen many college graduates who are completely lacking in understanding and experience in what i consider to be incredibly key areas. the fact that they can pick up on it with a little bit of extra effort on both of our parts is what separates the good employees from the bad. i have more faith in a relatively random person with a college degree doing that than a relatively random person without a college degree. i wouldn't bet on either, but I'd be more surprised if the former fails than the latter.
So you're under the misguided assumption that University actually teaches you important skills that are used in the pursued career?
Listen: college didn't teach me anything I didn't already know about software engineering. Mostly it just took up my time and my money. Showing a willingness to jump through those hoops for the end goal (a degree) was apparently enough to interest my employer, who hired me as an intern. I learned more working on the job in my first 2 months than I did the entire 4 years of University combined.
Add to this was our University president, who at commencement stated "Remember: an undergraduate degree does not mean you are educated. It simply means that you are educatable."
The whole point he was trying to get across was that we didn't go for an undergraduate degree to learn the subject matter so much as we obtained an undergraduate degree to learn how to learn.
The thought process is "teach a man to learn, and he will learn his entire life".
I think the big thing a lot of people seem to forget about college is that it forces you to jump through hoops. Lots of them, every day. Tons and tons of hoops. Hoops you wouldn't otherwise give a damn about, but you do it because you have to.
Proving you can do this, and do it well, is pretty much exactly what I need to know about you. Guess what? Most of any modern job is doing just that; jumping through hoops. Sometimes the hoops in question are complex, and it'd be nice knowing you were able to manage your way through those at some point at a University.
Basically: given two people of equal knowledge, one with a college degree and one without, barring any personality concerns, I'll pick the university degree over the person without one any day.
If you won't even go through the effort to prove to me that you are willing to go through a bunch of bullshit for something you want, then why should I trust you to go through the bullshit that will show up as a matter of course in any job for a paycheck? What is there to tell me that you won't just coast and accept said check and mail it in, day after day after day?
It's not fair to say that you're like that, because it's very possible you're not. However, when it comes down to it, I'm not willing to take that chance.
(Sidenote: I'm not actually a fan of bullshit and jumping through hoops, but to say they don't ever happen is a bit naive at best. Just saying...)
There are three commercial breaks per period, for 30 seconds. 30 seconds. They are not taken while play is ongoing. They only occur after play stops due to a puck leaving the playing surface or a penalty (though not for icing). If no one is penalized (including offsides, puck leaving the playing surface / touching the netting), then it is very possible that the commercial break won't even be taken. They do not whistle play dead in the middle of it just to get a commercial in.
My guess is you just weren't paying very much attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is quite possibly why you think pure capitalism is the bee's knees. For those of us who plainly see coercion and see how it is used to proper fuck a multitude of people, that is why we're not all gung ho about pure capitalism and infinitesimal government. Even if you can't see it, you should, at the least, be able to accept that others do, which should allow you to see why they wouldn't be so about unfettered capitalism.
In this case, I'm not asking you to agree that coercion does or does not exist in capitalism: I'm just asking you to agree that other people feel it does exist, and why it subsequently leads them to a different conclusion than your own.
I believe, when he says coercion, he means legal coercion.
What you're talking about is economic coercion. It is clearly different than legal coercion, but can be just as powerful and just as reprehensible in use.
Well here we have a problem. You are seeming to assume that because I do not agree that property rights are an *axiom* that I am willing to agree that all the other rights (treated as axioms) still are not in effect.
To me, liberty has little to do with property, but has much more to do with thought, speech, assembly, press, etc. Property rights are niceties, but I don't hold them to be so important as to claim they are axiomatic to the concept of liberty. I believe that is where we fundamentally differ.
So I suppose I was only being a partial devil's advocate. I'd like to see property protection, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe in property rights. It is in society's best interests that individuals own property that they have amassed through their keen wit and hard work. To remove property for no-good-reason is foolish if you want a prosperous country. But to say property rights are absolute and beyond question - I just don't buy it.
Let's put it this way: I find "freedom zones" and suppression of assembly far more anti-liberty and anti-american than taxation for social programs or civic works. If you pressed me, I'd admit they are both strictly against the current constitution. The former, to me, is unconscionable, whereas the latter, I deem a necessary evil.
Excellent!
This is a specific proof that applies to the individual. Now what about external objects? What about property (physical property; let's not complicate things by including intellectual property).
Actually, I was always discussing sociology. I was discussing economic models and their implementation in reality. You cannot have a reality involving humans without social studies being integral. I guess you missed that part of my previous statement (way up there, when I mentioned "reality"). That was (in my opinion) the important part of my statement. I fear you may have focused on the rest and not on that one part. A communication error, perhaps.
I definitely see what you're saying and I can respect it. However, idealism rarely gets us anywhere. Invariably, ones ideals clash with another's. Then it's a question of struggle.
I, personally, try to avoid ideals, especially fanatic devotion to any ideal. I've seen where zealotry leads, and I have no desire to be there.
I guess my main problem with your position is that you seem to ignore that a large portion of the people feel that social programs (those things you don't feel governments should be in charge of) are important aspects of government. Is not government supposed to reflect the will of the majority of the people? Have they not used their most valued right (the right to vote) to make their voice and opinions heard? Have they not collectively decided that government's role should be expanded beyond protecting interstate commerce and defense?
I'm only surmising here, but I imagine your response would be "their right to define the government they desire is fine, as long as it falls within the boundaries of the constitution, which protects the rights of the minority from the majority". If so, my response to that would be "fair enough, but do you really want to force the issue? If it came down to allowing a federal government with social services, possibly in contradiction of the constitution, or amending the constitution, which do you think will really end up happening?"
I'm only speculating here, but people in our society have gotten used to social programs on some level or another. I cannot imagine an amendment to the constitution allowing the federal government to participate in social programs.
(I apologize if that wasn't going to be your response; feel free to correct me :D)
Or not. I'm quite content ignoring you. After all, I'm not the one taking the fruits of your labor; the government is. That I support them is an indirect assault upon what you consider your person (which you clearly feel property is). That's fine. The point is, when you wish to resolve this by force, the onus is on you to come after me. I already have what I want; it's up to you to go out of your way to stop me.
You'll forgive me if I don't anticipate your coming with any alacrity. Something tells me your bravado only goes to the "submit" button.
I'm saying that you have to prove these things first before you can use them. These are not axioms - at least not in the logical sense. The United States Constitution clearly holds them to be axioms, but as we all well know, the US Constitution is not the defining document on what is and what is not held to be true, universally.
My point is that if we're going to start arguing over who needs to prove what, then fine: we can start at the lowest point first and move on from there.
Maybe we just go further up the chain, then, and you can prove to me why "ownership" is a "good" thing, much less a "right".
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but if you want to split hairs about who has to prove what, let's start at the core of your thesis and move on from there, shall we?
That's actually an excellent question. What is better?
Is it better to have an enlightened society where everyone is in-as-perfect-health as it can be, water is clean, food is always in tip-top shape (no mad cow - ever), every road has a bike lane and a sidewalk beside it, corporate greed is kept in check (there is a difference between prudent business and avarice, after all, though the line is subtle and easy to cross), but where taxes are obscenely high and certain individuals live lives of sloth and excess without working while others labor extensive hours for minimal return?
Or is it better to have a cut-throat society where every road is a toll road, you only attend school if your parents can afford it (otherwise, you start work as soon as you are physically capable), health care only exists for those who can afford it, corporations (or any business, really) runs rampant with greed (and to hell with the costs (industrial waste dumping, etc), but where taxes are low (after all, government need only support a standing army for defense and pay the salaries of the elected representatives), while people who cannot work starve (and their families), or people who will not work starve (and their families), while the most others labor extensive hours for ... minimal return (except for a few with something outstanding about them that puts them in the de-facto "Gentlemen/Ladyship" class).
Or something in the middle.
Or maybe something wildly outside either of those, whether we're talking Feudalism or Communism or Socialism or what have you.
I can't tell you what is better and then subsequently prove it, which was (I'm sure) the point of your asking. But I know I do NOT like the sounds of the "way life was" in the 1700's through to the 1930's. Unfortunately, with this sort of thing, we're almost stuck in a situation where we can do nothing but find the "best" way by process of elimination. I'm not sure either of us has that time.
Okay, sure. There are approximately 6 billion people in the world, all with their own particular values and opinions. You could surely collapse some values of certain swathes of people into a group of norms, but we're still talking at least hundreds of thousands of viewpoints, if not millions (depends on how specifically you try to categorize said opinions). Just looking at their books and various other writings, I can easily assume that they did not take into consideration hundreds of thousands of viewpoints. Therefor, they did not take into consideration all of the variables involved in reality.
I do not have to get more specific than that. They may have focused on the most prevalent viewpoints, but to say they considered every last aspect of humanity's individuality and its' effects on the average social viewpoints is patently absurd. The problem is, since everybody is different, the interplay between the individual and the social norm is subtle. The best way to describe the reality of society is to liken it to determining the weather. Chaos theory, perhaps, describes it best.
In essence, Marx and Locke focused on abstracts. The problem is reality has so many specific instantiations of unforseeable behavior that their economic models tend to break down the moment you put them into play with large groups of people. These models then need "fixes" applied, like patches, over time. It's not to say that Locke or Marx were idiots; they were quite intelligent men, regardless of your opinion on their socio-economic models. But to say the abstract models they specified will work flawlessly in society is foolishness. Every model currently in play in the world is an example of that. They were adopted with the purest of intentions, but patch after patch was overlaid upon them to rectify some perceived flaw in some specific case. Then you get American Capitalism, British Capitalism, German Socialism, Vietnamese Communism, Chinese Communism, etc, etc. They're all examples of how these models broke down upon entering society. In an ideal world, no one would want to modify the models at all, and then Locke or Marx's utopia would flourish and everyone would be dancing in the street as they basked in the fruits of their perceived "right way to live" socio-economic model.
But it has never happened and it never will happen, and therein is the entire point I was trying to make.
Oh, and because both you and Thomas Paine feel it is right and true, it has to be taken as gospel truth?
You're basically saying "just because I fervently believe I am right and you are wrong, you should believe me too". You're going to need to prove to me that your way is better than the one we have now.
Take your time, I'll be here to look it over when your proof is complete. Until you do that, please refrain from being so damned self-righteous, mmkay? I'm quite content stating our current way is not the best way. I've yet to see anyone prove to me that their way is, overall, any better.
The main problem is that these things going on under NASA aren't understood by the public. And until someone in NASA can come along and sell them to the average person, all we can do is take your (and other engineers') word for it. Seeing as how you are making money from it (even if it isn't quite enough), the average person has every reason to question you at your word. This is not to say that you are lying, but to say that, despite evidence (and subsequent understanding) to support your word, the average person will doubt you and will otherwise be much happier spending money on education.
All in all, that may not be a bad thing - if spending more money on education makes for a more educated populace. Maybe then they'll understand the things that went on under NASA aside from rockets and spaceships and be more willing to spend money on it. Something tells me it won't quite work out that way, however, but I digress.
So... what exactly is your point? This is like arguing with a college student over why idealistic communism will fail.
Turns out reality has quite a bit more variables involved in it than Locke or Marx previously considered.
Where did he say the ends justifies the means?
I think you're making the assumption that everyone here is against the means used in this situation. Spending money on a mega highway in Alaska is the true definition of pork. Government spending on far reaching projects that otherwise wouldn't be immediately profitable for the business sector is perfectly fine, in my book. Don't assume that just because you think this is pork, everyone else is going to agree with you.
Well, I thought I answered that. Financially, no. Responsibility wise - it taught me more about responsibility than just about anything else has, ever. So, as far as growing as a person goes, it was invaluable. As far as putting money in my wallet - not so much. I probably could've made just as much milking cows and bailing hay.
Ignoring the vast majority of what the other sibling had to say concerning work, you have to understand that to a large part of America, working as a teenager is a necessity. It's their first chance to start seeing what the world is like. You can liken it to letting them ride a bicycle with training wheels; they aren't on their own yet, but they're getting valuable experience at a time when they're legally protected in many ways. This "newbie training zone" sort of effect is incredibly essential in teaching kids the value of hard work for the things they want - no longer do they get handed everything on a silver platter (or at least during birthdays/christmas), but instead they have to labor for the things that are important to them.
I was working since I was 14 - first on a dairy farm, which I was able to reach on my bike (except in the winter, in which case it was better to take a sled), and then my first minimum-wage job at age 16. From 14-16, I saved my money and purchased my car. After that point, I used what money I made to pay obscenely high insurance rates. Financially speaking, I broke even by a few hundred dollars a year, after maintenance, gas, and insurance were included. So you could say that, economically speaking, I got very little benefit from working.
What I did get, however, was an appreciation for what it took to get the things I wanted; that sometimes expensiveToyX was not worth the hours of labor required to afford it.
These sort of lessons are invaluable to a teenager reaching their majority.
If you live in a more urban (or suburban) area, a car may not be essential. Public transportation or good ol' fashioned feet could be perfectly reasonable choices. Easily forgotten, I know, but rural america still exists, and there's still enough people living in it that you need to take it into consideration before you start thinking about how driving isn't that important.
Then that's easy. Put these fake license plates over their teacher's license plates and let them accept the very steep charge.
The point is these things are so laughably easy to abuse that we shouldn't be relying on them. Yes, in an ideal world, people would not be born retarded and feel the need to act like a jackass at any point in their life.
But as we all well know, that is not the case and it's something you need to plan on; when a person has the opportunity of doing the right thing or being antisocial for their own benefit, you better bank on the latter and be pleasantly surprised by the former.
Excuse me?
They are the definition of a Church. I see next to no difference between them and the Roman Catholic Church. An organization who suckers people in with platitudes, encouraging them to open their pocketbooks on an ongoing basis, to benefit those at the top?
For fuck's sake, the pope wears a gold god damned hat and sits on a gold fucking throne. I'm pretty sure that church sums up Scientology quite neatly. Just like every other church.
I'd say it'd be even better if you took an approximation of the total number of webpages on the internet and then took the 1 in 100 ratio on that.
According to http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/ , which I cannot vouch for its accuracy but at least it has some numbers:
there are 25.16billion webpages indexed on the internet.
25,160,000,000.
a 1 in 100 ratio would mean that 251,600,000 webpages will be marked as false positives and dropped.
A quarter of a billion legitimate webpages lost doesn't seem like a number we can just ignore.
I donno about that. My father was a coal miner (and still is). My mother stayed at home.
Actually, turns out that I'm the first on either my mother or father's side of the family who completed college. Of the roughly 10 cousins older than I, 3 attended college at the same time or before I. One dropped out to work, another got hooked on smack, and the last just took a long-ass time to figure out what the hell she wanted to do.
Do I sound like your stereotypical child of an affluent white family? My father was making about 28k a year (which is why my FAFSA reaped such huge dividends for me), and at least 1/3 of my family is either addicted to heroin, crack, or cocaine, with one particularly colorful cousin the proud mother of 4 crackbabies.
Needless to say, I don't consort with most of my family any longer.
But, I guess that just because I'm white, it automatically means my family was mega rich and completely adjusted, eh?
no, the assumption is that if you have a degree, there is a higher probability that you can learn or else you wouldn't have made it through university in the first place. depending on what university you are from, the probability increases or decreases.
for those who haven't attended university, the employer basically has no idea. do you know how terribly bad it is to judge someone on, at most, 24 hours worth of day-long contact? this is assuming a rigorous 3 1-day-long interview sessions for that specific person. that's probably more time than most organizations are willing to give (rightly or wrongly).
it's hard to tell after just a few hours and a resume what a person can do. people who do exceptionally well at interviews still bomb out after a few weeks of work. at least if they have a degree that is just one more piece of evidence in their favor. but to claim that that degree says they know everything there is to know about a specific subject (be it Computer Science or Secondary Education or Underwater Basketweaving) is silly. it's even a stretch to claim that what they do know is worth relying on; i've seen many college graduates who are completely lacking in understanding and experience in what i consider to be incredibly key areas. the fact that they can pick up on it with a little bit of extra effort on both of our parts is what separates the good employees from the bad. i have more faith in a relatively random person with a college degree doing that than a relatively random person without a college degree. i wouldn't bet on either, but I'd be more surprised if the former fails than the latter.
So you're under the misguided assumption that University actually teaches you important skills that are used in the pursued career?
Listen: college didn't teach me anything I didn't already know about software engineering. Mostly it just took up my time and my money. Showing a willingness to jump through those hoops for the end goal (a degree) was apparently enough to interest my employer, who hired me as an intern. I learned more working on the job in my first 2 months than I did the entire 4 years of University combined.
Add to this was our University president, who at commencement stated "Remember: an undergraduate degree does not mean you are educated. It simply means that you are educatable."
The whole point he was trying to get across was that we didn't go for an undergraduate degree to learn the subject matter so much as we obtained an undergraduate degree to learn how to learn.
The thought process is "teach a man to learn, and he will learn his entire life".
I think the big thing a lot of people seem to forget about college is that it forces you to jump through hoops. Lots of them, every day. Tons and tons of hoops. Hoops you wouldn't otherwise give a damn about, but you do it because you have to.
Proving you can do this, and do it well, is pretty much exactly what I need to know about you. Guess what? Most of any modern job is doing just that; jumping through hoops. Sometimes the hoops in question are complex, and it'd be nice knowing you were able to manage your way through those at some point at a University.
Basically: given two people of equal knowledge, one with a college degree and one without, barring any personality concerns, I'll pick the university degree over the person without one any day.
If you won't even go through the effort to prove to me that you are willing to go through a bunch of bullshit for something you want, then why should I trust you to go through the bullshit that will show up as a matter of course in any job for a paycheck? What is there to tell me that you won't just coast and accept said check and mail it in, day after day after day?
It's not fair to say that you're like that, because it's very possible you're not. However, when it comes down to it, I'm not willing to take that chance.
(Sidenote: I'm not actually a fan of bullshit and jumping through hoops, but to say they don't ever happen is a bit naive at best. Just saying...)
False.
There are three commercial breaks per period, for 30 seconds. 30 seconds. They are not taken while play is ongoing. They only occur after play stops due to a puck leaving the playing surface or a penalty (though not for icing). If no one is penalized (including offsides, puck leaving the playing surface / touching the netting), then it is very possible that the commercial break won't even be taken. They do not whistle play dead in the middle of it just to get a commercial in.
My guess is you just weren't paying very much attention.
Isn't that what I'm did by paying the obscene "technology fee"? What ELSE is that 1224$ going toward?
Is it hookers? Hookers and blow? You can tell me the truth. I won't be half as mad if you tell me it's hookers and blow.