This definition especially holds true for large groups of people, but what qualifies as "large" varies from person to person.
This is where you should clarify the "interacting" bit--introverts are no different from extroverts when they've giving presentations or otherwise doing one-way communication with large groups of people. It may be easier and more fun to an introvert than, say, a party.
Another thing I find amazing is the implicit idea that the USA single-handedly baled anyone out of either world war.
That's perhaps an exaggeration--however, US intervention in the Second World War did two things most Europeans should be VERY grateful for. First, it ensured that much of Europe would spend the rest of the 20th century free from communism. Second, the US was the only allied power at the end of the war whose homeland and production capacity was completely unscathed. The Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Europe allowed a literally post-apocalyptic continent to recover and become even more prosperous than before.
Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.
Statistically, the sample size is so incredibly low that we can't predict anything with it.
I'm not talking about firefighters and emergency workers. (Please cite a source for this supposed gag order, though.) I'm talking about the people who worked in the WTC every day. Why is it that none of them noticed anything that would lead us to think charges were planted inside the WTC? This theory also neglects to inform us why they bothered with the Pentagon and with the fourth plane.
Maybe if it's a matter of transporting small forces of troops via Osprey into a small facility. If you have to fight your way into the country against a ruthless WMD-equipped enemy in order to reach highly-guarded facilities deep inside the country, casualties are going to be a bit higher.
Why would you bother about air superiority, when the right tactic would be to make/let the US come in on the ground, and then fight in the cities?
Easy to say NOW. If it wasn't for our invincible airforce you'd be saying, "Hey, let's stall them by fighting for air superiority, and if we fail, let's let them come in on the ground and fight in the cities!
That only works if you're willing to kill thousands of your own infantry. Have you followed American politics recently? No one cares about enemy civilian casualties.
Someday, when a Sukhoi pilot least expects it, his precious maneuverable Sukhoi will have to outmaneuver a batch of missiles from an airplane he never saw. Then his precious Sukhoi will be destroyed, and he will be dead. And the country he was tasked to protect will be pulverized by the shock and awe of American bombers, just because their highly maneuverable Sukhois never saw the planes that killed them.
Pilots are expensive and difficult to train. Over the course of a prolonged conflict, your pilots die. You are unable to train new ones fast enough, and soon, the most productive use for them is as human guidance systems for cruise missiles. This is what happened to the Japanese. Militarily and politically, reducing pilot losses is essential. If you can deploy an F-22 wing and utterly destroy the air force of an entire nation without taking more than token losses, the F-22 has served its mission.
So a good education is only for the rich, or for people who are going to do well at subjects that make them rich? There are a lot of subjects that require degrees (or masters degrees) that do not pay $40k a year to people straight out of college. Maybe you were lucky.
If you're poor, there are scholarships. If you're studying business, liberal arts, or social sciences, you likely have enough free time to get a job while you're in college. And if you're middle class, your parents may have saved some money for you. Any of those things reduces the amound you'll have to pay back later. And, just like with everything, a good education is only for those who value it enough to pay for it. If you're poor and desperately want a good education in English literature, you should want it bad enough to spend a good deal of your life paying for it.
Well at any decent company the first ~1k is going to be matched, but it's also probably fair to say that, over a 25-35 year period, putting money in most mutual funds is going to give a better return than paying off a student loan.
You invest each dollar by the amount that it gives a better return.
you will be restricted in when you can buy food, how long you'll be able to prepare it, how long you have to eat it
And a college student isn't?
And for housing it's often the case that you'll be sharing with 1 or 2 other students, which is often not viable after you've graduated. It's also not out of the question for you to want to own a home within the first couple of years at work.
Wanting to own a home is another case where you compare rates of return.
That's like saying don't complain if someone breaks your legs because at least you are alive. Yes, it's true, but is mostly meaningless.
Is the difference between a student apartment and a "nice" apartment like the difference between broken legs and healthy legs? Or are we socially conditioned to want "nice" things instead of "crappy" things when the "nice" things don't make us any more happy?
The whole discussion is kind of sureal anyway, as given the student loan rates paying it early is the worst thing to do.
Only if you can invest money with higher returns. Paying extra rent for a "nice" apartment only decreases your net worth--paying down a loan increases it in the longterm (when the amount you paid off doesn't compound) and leaves it the same in the shorterm (as your diminished assets offset your reduced debt). And while federal loans may have artificially low rates, private loans do not.
having to spend a third to a half the price of a home on an education
If you're not going to get a decent job, then don't go to expensive colleges and think to yourself that you can afford it unless you willingly choose to saddle yourself with debt, at which point it's nothing you should be whining about later.
and assuming no state tax you'll only have $32.5k per. year a actual money
OK. That leaves 20k to pay down debts, and a four year schedule, assuming no raises or other increases in income.
Which doesn't include the ~4k-8k you should be putting in your 401k
If and only if the return on that is greater than the interest on your debt.
and any medical contributiuons. Then you almost certianly need a car, you'll have bigger expenses for work clothing and obviously need rent and food (rent/mortgage is very likely to be higher, food probably is too).
A lot of college students already have cars one way or another. Does it stop running when you graduate? You have to move to a more expensive city or more expensive part of town to work, fine. Do you suddenly need to eat more expensive food when you graduate? Maybe groceries cost more where you're moving to--fair enough, I guess.
So having a decent job straight from school, spending almost nothing extra, living in the same kind of crappy accomodations you did during school and eating the same kind of crappy food
Fine dining and luxurious living accommodations (and keep in mind that, from the perspective of most human beings who have ever lived, your accommodations are already luxurious and your dining already fine) are not the key to happiness. I'm satisfied with what I have. I'm not like most Americans, and I don't think spending lots of money often accomplishes any useful end above and beyond sustaining myself. Perhaps I have the mentality to escape the debt most Americans constantly find themselves in. It's a pity that they don't.
There's a difference between knowing the truth and being a paranoid schizophrenic. You have no idea what I know and what I believe and how much it conflicts with the mainstream. But have you ever wondered how that many explosives could be set inside the WTC, with no one the wiser? How radio control systems could be installed in commercial aircraft, with no witnesses coming forth to say anything? Study history. Even the Reichstag fire wasn't necessarily set by the Nazis.
Thinking that the government covertly planted explosives inside the World Trade Center, only to hijack aircraft (employing primarily Saudi nationals to do so) and run them into the towers for theatrical purposes, simply to create a sort of Reichstag fire doesn't even have the minimal amount of logic necessary to make a believable story. The federal government does evil things, sure, but they don't come up with fiendish plans worthy of Lex Luthor.
There's a difference between what you do in public in front of everyone and what you do in front of your employees and friends. Ballmer throws fits if he thinks he's being betrayed, Jobs is a bitchy perfectionist, and Gates probably has his own issues. But they know well enough to be civil when they're in public.
you couldn't charge more for it than the market will pay
I think I alluded to this when I talked about "pick up the part of the market willing to pay that price". It's a nice coincidence that this also helps to pay for development. With more substantial innovations this is more pronounced--automobiles, commercial flight, the first cellular phones, all were the exclusive province of the wealthy due to the inherent cost of developing the technology.
The price, however, is not at all dependent on how much the company has invested in the design.
It is dependent on that because the company has to cover its costs and turn a profit. Economists used to argue about this centuries ago. The price results from the interaction of supply-side and demand-side forces. There are more refined arguments about which is more powerful and to what extent they affect things, but the price is dependent on both sides of the transaction, as is quantity sold.
If people had the will to do that, student loans, bankruptcies, second mortgages, and credit cards would all be unnecessary.
Of those four things, student loans are pretty much the only form of consumer debt that makes sense. In business, you take on debts if you're reasonably certain you'll make enough profit on the borrowed money to pay off the interest and then some. The same rationale applies for student loans. Bankruptcies are a failure to manage debt properly. (Sometimes the failure is unavoidable--medical catastrophes, for instance--but it is still a failure.) Sometimes you're just a dumbass who wants a bigger house and an HDTV when you can't really afford it. Second mortgages and credit cards are the same story. Unless you have some emergency cashflow issue or honestly expect to profit from borrowed money (and yes, gaining equity in a house instead of wasting money on rent counts as profit), borrowing money is a stupid, stupid idea, and Americans do far too much of it out of a desire to fulfill an expensive consumer lifestyle.
$20,000 is a very high tuition. However, I didn't cite tuition. Tuition is only about $5,000 a year. The other $15,000 is for living expenses, books, and fees. Tuition *is* about $20,000 at a place like Caltech, where total annual expenses approach $50,000. That's $200,000 for a four-year education, but Caltech grads hopefully make enough money in their lives to pay for it. And if they don't, then I guess going to Caltech isn't worth it for them.
Slashdot Mirror
This is where you should clarify the "interacting" bit--introverts are no different from extroverts when they've giving presentations or otherwise doing one-way communication with large groups of people. It may be easier and more fun to an introvert than, say, a party.
That's perhaps an exaggeration--however, US intervention in the Second World War did two things most Europeans should be VERY grateful for. First, it ensured that much of Europe would spend the rest of the 20th century free from communism. Second, the US was the only allied power at the end of the war whose homeland and production capacity was completely unscathed. The Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Europe allowed a literally post-apocalyptic continent to recover and become even more prosperous than before.
Your first mistake. CIS/MIS degrees pretty much translate to, "I washed out of Computer Science but still wanted a technology degree".
Statistically, the sample size is so incredibly low that we can't predict anything with it.
By your standards, what in God's name does a phone have to do until it isn't "basic"?
That's supposed to be "BCE" and "CE", you idiot. The "Christian Era" (also known as the Common Era) isn't a point in time, it's an era.
With email. And Safari. And iTunes. And Google maps. And Wi-Fi. And OS X.
The population of the WTC was 50,000. Around 3,000 actually died.
I'm not talking about firefighters and emergency workers. (Please cite a source for this supposed gag order, though.) I'm talking about the people who worked in the WTC every day. Why is it that none of them noticed anything that would lead us to think charges were planted inside the WTC? This theory also neglects to inform us why they bothered with the Pentagon and with the fourth plane.
Maybe if it's a matter of transporting small forces of troops via Osprey into a small facility. If you have to fight your way into the country against a ruthless WMD-equipped enemy in order to reach highly-guarded facilities deep inside the country, casualties are going to be a bit higher.
Easy to say NOW. If it wasn't for our invincible airforce you'd be saying, "Hey, let's stall them by fighting for air superiority, and if we fail, let's let them come in on the ground and fight in the cities!
That only works if you're willing to kill thousands of your own infantry. Have you followed American politics recently? No one cares about enemy civilian casualties.
Someday, when a Sukhoi pilot least expects it, his precious maneuverable Sukhoi will have to outmaneuver a batch of missiles from an airplane he never saw. Then his precious Sukhoi will be destroyed, and he will be dead. And the country he was tasked to protect will be pulverized by the shock and awe of American bombers, just because their highly maneuverable Sukhois never saw the planes that killed them.
Pilots are expensive and difficult to train. Over the course of a prolonged conflict, your pilots die. You are unable to train new ones fast enough, and soon, the most productive use for them is as human guidance systems for cruise missiles. This is what happened to the Japanese. Militarily and politically, reducing pilot losses is essential. If you can deploy an F-22 wing and utterly destroy the air force of an entire nation without taking more than token losses, the F-22 has served its mission.
Alright, which one of you moderators thought that would be funny?
If you're poor, there are scholarships. If you're studying business, liberal arts, or social sciences, you likely have enough free time to get a job while you're in college. And if you're middle class, your parents may have saved some money for you. Any of those things reduces the amound you'll have to pay back later. And, just like with everything, a good education is only for those who value it enough to pay for it. If you're poor and desperately want a good education in English literature, you should want it bad enough to spend a good deal of your life paying for it.
You invest each dollar by the amount that it gives a better return.
And a college student isn't?
Wanting to own a home is another case where you compare rates of return.
Is the difference between a student apartment and a "nice" apartment like the difference between broken legs and healthy legs? Or are we socially conditioned to want "nice" things instead of "crappy" things when the "nice" things don't make us any more happy?
Only if you can invest money with higher returns. Paying extra rent for a "nice" apartment only decreases your net worth--paying down a loan increases it in the longterm (when the amount you paid off doesn't compound) and leaves it the same in the shorterm (as your diminished assets offset your reduced debt). And while federal loans may have artificially low rates, private loans do not.
An education is only worth one third of a home?
If you're not going to get a decent job, then don't go to expensive colleges and think to yourself that you can afford it unless you willingly choose to saddle yourself with debt, at which point it's nothing you should be whining about later.
OK. That leaves 20k to pay down debts, and a four year schedule, assuming no raises or other increases in income.
If and only if the return on that is greater than the interest on your debt.
A lot of college students already have cars one way or another. Does it stop running when you graduate? You have to move to a more expensive city or more expensive part of town to work, fine. Do you suddenly need to eat more expensive food when you graduate? Maybe groceries cost more where you're moving to--fair enough, I guess.
Fine dining and luxurious living accommodations (and keep in mind that, from the perspective of most human beings who have ever lived, your accommodations are already luxurious and your dining already fine) are not the key to happiness. I'm satisfied with what I have. I'm not like most Americans, and I don't think spending lots of money often accomplishes any useful end above and beyond sustaining myself. Perhaps I have the mentality to escape the debt most Americans constantly find themselves in. It's a pity that they don't.
There's a difference between knowing the truth and being a paranoid schizophrenic. You have no idea what I know and what I believe and how much it conflicts with the mainstream. But have you ever wondered how that many explosives could be set inside the WTC, with no one the wiser? How radio control systems could be installed in commercial aircraft, with no witnesses coming forth to say anything? Study history. Even the Reichstag fire wasn't necessarily set by the Nazis.
Thinking that the government covertly planted explosives inside the World Trade Center, only to hijack aircraft (employing primarily Saudi nationals to do so) and run them into the towers for theatrical purposes, simply to create a sort of Reichstag fire doesn't even have the minimal amount of logic necessary to make a believable story. The federal government does evil things, sure, but they don't come up with fiendish plans worthy of Lex Luthor.
There's a difference between what you do in public in front of everyone and what you do in front of your employees and friends. Ballmer throws fits if he thinks he's being betrayed, Jobs is a bitchy perfectionist, and Gates probably has his own issues. But they know well enough to be civil when they're in public.
Um...did you get distracted?
Don't you know how American politics works? It's not voting, it's campaign contributions!
The iPhone. And before you say "but they only developed a product out of preexisting technology", of course, that's what all inventions are.
I think I alluded to this when I talked about "pick up the part of the market willing to pay that price". It's a nice coincidence that this also helps to pay for development. With more substantial innovations this is more pronounced--automobiles, commercial flight, the first cellular phones, all were the exclusive province of the wealthy due to the inherent cost of developing the technology.
It is dependent on that because the company has to cover its costs and turn a profit. Economists used to argue about this centuries ago. The price results from the interaction of supply-side and demand-side forces. There are more refined arguments about which is more powerful and to what extent they affect things, but the price is dependent on both sides of the transaction, as is quantity sold.
Of those four things, student loans are pretty much the only form of consumer debt that makes sense. In business, you take on debts if you're reasonably certain you'll make enough profit on the borrowed money to pay off the interest and then some. The same rationale applies for student loans. Bankruptcies are a failure to manage debt properly. (Sometimes the failure is unavoidable--medical catastrophes, for instance--but it is still a failure.) Sometimes you're just a dumbass who wants a bigger house and an HDTV when you can't really afford it. Second mortgages and credit cards are the same story. Unless you have some emergency cashflow issue or honestly expect to profit from borrowed money (and yes, gaining equity in a house instead of wasting money on rent counts as profit), borrowing money is a stupid, stupid idea, and Americans do far too much of it out of a desire to fulfill an expensive consumer lifestyle.
$20,000 is a very high tuition. However, I didn't cite tuition. Tuition is only about $5,000 a year. The other $15,000 is for living expenses, books, and fees. Tuition *is* about $20,000 at a place like Caltech, where total annual expenses approach $50,000. That's $200,000 for a four-year education, but Caltech grads hopefully make enough money in their lives to pay for it. And if they don't, then I guess going to Caltech isn't worth it for them.