What seems reasonable to you today might not 10 years from now. Change doesn't have to mean screwing over people you love. But there's certainly no reason to feel some misguided loyalty to your bank over some bullshit loan they sold you that they would turn away from in an instant were the situation reversed.
Yes, it is crazy. The problem is that society itself is insane. As if you should be held to a debt obligation over a span of 20 or 30 years, and a person could really understand what that entales.
In reality, you can walk away from a house you can't afford. And you should. All that other nonsense is relatively unimportant, and certainly not worth losing your dreams.
Nevermind what kind of an example that sets for your kids.
The example that you need to think for yourself about what's the right thing to do, rather than simply buying into what society tells you.
Are most parents really that cool about their adult child, spouse, and grandkids all moving in with them, especially if said child just didn't feel like paying their mortgage?
I'm not offering up a foolproof solution to all of life's problems. The world doesn't work that way, but there are those who what you to think it does, and that what you have to do is get a steady job and a mortgage and whatnot and everything will be fine. Real life doesn't work that way. You give something up, and you should be conscious of that. Not simply take whatever you're told as the truth.
That's silly. You don't want the house so stop paying your mortgage. Then go find an apartment, or move in with you parents. There are a surprising number of options if you can get out of the mindset that you have to own a house and you have to have good credit and you have to do whatever it is you think you have to do.
And most people have no idea what it really takes to raise kids well. I'll tell you one thing it doesn't require, a whole lot of money. And another thing you don't need to do it is a house.
I just moved out of Orange County. Like I said, you have to make choices. Living in California is not a good one if you want to have a flexible lifestyle. There are places where you can rent a 2 bedroom apartment for 500 a month.
You'd be surprised how little it costs to get by. And if you're married, you can divide the labor between you two.
The thing is that what he want's it to be his own boss, or something like that. There are always incompetent managers, so you can't escape it just by changing jobs. But you can choose who you do business with.
It's a choice. Either you want the house in the suburbs with the stable income, and the shitty job that goes with it, or you don't.
Have you ever checked your mail? Notice how it's literally full of completely untargeted advertising? If that's profitable, how could this possibly not be?
While I agree it's a professional's job to know this stuff, I would also like to point out it's not a crime to build your RDBMS in such a way that queries run as fast as possible regardless of how the query was written. Indeed, anything less is an inferior product.
The thing is that back in the '30s most people viewed the government with a great deal of suspicion. Outlaws were held up as nobel freedom-fighters. Even the the Barrow gang was fine until they apparently shot a traffic patrolman in cold blood. If the government went to kick a family off their land, the nation was incensed by it.
These days, the balance of trust has shifted. People don't trust each other at all, and they often view the government as the lesser of two evils (even though they don't trust it either).
So standing up to officials is likely to get your children taken by social services, and it isn't likely to get you much sympathy. And getting in a fist fight over it will get you jail-time.
The problem isn't that we don't stand up for ourselves (the fact that 3 million people are in jail is a testament to that), but that we put our faith in the government to save us from each other, when the government is what we should be mainly worried about.
I know you can't be bothered to read the article because you've already made up your mind, but it says:
The Energy Institute said its report was conducted using general university funds, rather than specific grants from energy-industry companies or environmental groups. However, the institute said the Environmental Defense Fund assisted in developing the scope of work and the methodology for the study. The EDF said it reviewed drafts of the report during the course of the project but did not contribute to its conclusions.
So, just in case your question was not rhetorical (and I'm pretty sure it was) there's your answer.
For those who my have missed the joke and modded this down for some reason, the quote could be better written:
Study Says Sex is Safe In Theory But Often Not In Practice
Which is not only certainly true (most people will do whatever they can to avoid using a condom), it also seems strangely appropriate and on-topic in this instance. Especially if you've ever known any drillers.
You can do everything right and still get a bad seal. If you rush the job and ignore warning signs, you are pretty much guaranteed to get a bad seal. Which do you suppose causes more problems?
So, if doing fraking "right" requires you to have perfect cement jobs everytime, then it isn't possible to do fraking right.
You could say the same of any drilling. If you don't have a good seal, you haven't done it right. It is possible to check this kind of thing afterwards. Maybe they should.
Maybe this is what Tainter means by too much complexity causing our eventual downfall.
It is really disturbing to me that you seem to know who Tainter is, and to agree somewhat with what he's said. But you seem to be claiming that regulatory frameworks are somehow in need of expansion. One would think that you might be more concerned with stemming the tide of ever increasing government bureaucracy rather than expanding it. Perhaps it may be better to ask why the existing framework isn't accomplishing what it's supposed to, and looking for ways to improve it, rather than simply saying "lets draft yet another document and add it to our already absurd collection of government documents." But that's just me.
No, the triangle works against the free market by consolidating power into the hands of a few people who are then able to control the market. In reality the free market would work better if everyone were on a more equal footing, since it requires people have the ability to negotiate a fair price for themselves. Not that I believe that will happen, but it's important to understand that the people who oppose that are actually opposing the free market.
What?! Do you know this person you're replying to? Do you know for sure that he's a card carrying member of the denialist league? How do you know he didn't say something similar when that other stuff came out?
Assume much?! I hope you don't consider yourself to be a scientist or an engineer. Because from the sounds of it, you're more like a sports fan rooting for your team. Lean to think.
I can't believe there's actually a crime fighting organization called the Serious Organized Crime Agency. It's hard to imagine how they could have a sillier name, or who would feel threatened by something called that. Maybe they should upgrade it to the Super Serious Organized Crime Agency, or maybe even Super Serious Organized Crime Agency Plus.
Fuck these pork loving congressional bastards. We don't need SLS at all. It makes absolutely no sense to spent all that money developing a launch system that's probably going to be more expensive and less reliable than what we can simply buy from the market.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never been attracted to the kind of woman who want's a fancy house and an expensive car. I'm actually really surprised anyone would be.
You have a six figure income, but you don't have 50K in liquid assets? Why not?
What seems reasonable to you today might not 10 years from now. Change doesn't have to mean screwing over people you love. But there's certainly no reason to feel some misguided loyalty to your bank over some bullshit loan they sold you that they would turn away from in an instant were the situation reversed.
Yes, it is crazy. The problem is that society itself is insane. As if you should be held to a debt obligation over a span of 20 or 30 years, and a person could really understand what that entales.
In reality, you can walk away from a house you can't afford. And you should. All that other nonsense is relatively unimportant, and certainly not worth losing your dreams.
Like Boise Idaho? There are plenty of job prospects. You just haven't concerned yourself to look.
The example that you need to think for yourself about what's the right thing to do, rather than simply buying into what society tells you.
I'm not offering up a foolproof solution to all of life's problems. The world doesn't work that way, but there are those who what you to think it does, and that what you have to do is get a steady job and a mortgage and whatnot and everything will be fine. Real life doesn't work that way. You give something up, and you should be conscious of that. Not simply take whatever you're told as the truth.
That's silly. You don't want the house so stop paying your mortgage. Then go find an apartment, or move in with you parents. There are a surprising number of options if you can get out of the mindset that you have to own a house and you have to have good credit and you have to do whatever it is you think you have to do.
And most people have no idea what it really takes to raise kids well. I'll tell you one thing it doesn't require, a whole lot of money. And another thing you don't need to do it is a house.
I just moved out of Orange County. Like I said, you have to make choices. Living in California is not a good one if you want to have a flexible lifestyle. There are places where you can rent a 2 bedroom apartment for 500 a month.
Some stores keep better records than others. And I don't bring my cellphone with me everywhere I go.
What kind of advice is that?
You'd be surprised how little it costs to get by. And if you're married, you can divide the labor between you two.
The thing is that what he want's it to be his own boss, or something like that. There are always incompetent managers, so you can't escape it just by changing jobs. But you can choose who you do business with.
It's a choice. Either you want the house in the suburbs with the stable income, and the shitty job that goes with it, or you don't.
Only if you have the data, and with cash transactions, you don't.
Yes, but it's harder for them to know when you do it, so it cancels out.
Have you ever checked your mail? Notice how it's literally full of completely untargeted advertising? If that's profitable, how could this possibly not be?
While I agree it's a professional's job to know this stuff, I would also like to point out it's not a crime to build your RDBMS in such a way that queries run as fast as possible regardless of how the query was written. Indeed, anything less is an inferior product.
The thing is that back in the '30s most people viewed the government with a great deal of suspicion. Outlaws were held up as nobel freedom-fighters. Even the the Barrow gang was fine until they apparently shot a traffic patrolman in cold blood. If the government went to kick a family off their land, the nation was incensed by it.
These days, the balance of trust has shifted. People don't trust each other at all, and they often view the government as the lesser of two evils (even though they don't trust it either).
So standing up to officials is likely to get your children taken by social services, and it isn't likely to get you much sympathy. And getting in a fist fight over it will get you jail-time.
The problem isn't that we don't stand up for ourselves (the fact that 3 million people are in jail is a testament to that), but that we put our faith in the government to save us from each other, when the government is what we should be mainly worried about.
I know you can't be bothered to read the article because you've already made up your mind, but it says:
So, just in case your question was not rhetorical (and I'm pretty sure it was) there's your answer.
For those who my have missed the joke and modded this down for some reason, the quote could be better written:
Which is not only certainly true (most people will do whatever they can to avoid using a condom), it also seems strangely appropriate and on-topic in this instance. Especially if you've ever known any drillers.
You can do everything right and still get a bad seal. If you rush the job and ignore warning signs, you are pretty much guaranteed to get a bad seal. Which do you suppose causes more problems?
You could say the same of any drilling. If you don't have a good seal, you haven't done it right. It is possible to check this kind of thing afterwards. Maybe they should.
It is really disturbing to me that you seem to know who Tainter is, and to agree somewhat with what he's said. But you seem to be claiming that regulatory frameworks are somehow in need of expansion. One would think that you might be more concerned with stemming the tide of ever increasing government bureaucracy rather than expanding it. Perhaps it may be better to ask why the existing framework isn't accomplishing what it's supposed to, and looking for ways to improve it, rather than simply saying "lets draft yet another document and add it to our already absurd collection of government documents." But that's just me.
Incidentally, the article we're using about says that scientists don't really understand why 114 seems to be the end of the curve.
No, the triangle works against the free market by consolidating power into the hands of a few people who are then able to control the market. In reality the free market would work better if everyone were on a more equal footing, since it requires people have the ability to negotiate a fair price for themselves. Not that I believe that will happen, but it's important to understand that the people who oppose that are actually opposing the free market.
What?! Do you know this person you're replying to? Do you know for sure that he's a card carrying member of the denialist league? How do you know he didn't say something similar when that other stuff came out?
Assume much?! I hope you don't consider yourself to be a scientist or an engineer. Because from the sounds of it, you're more like a sports fan rooting for your team. Lean to think.
That's not how you spell "organized." I bet you think color is spelled with a "u" too. Ridiculous, learn to speak American!
I can't believe there's actually a crime fighting organization called the Serious Organized Crime Agency. It's hard to imagine how they could have a sillier name, or who would feel threatened by something called that. Maybe they should upgrade it to the Super Serious Organized Crime Agency, or maybe even Super Serious Organized Crime Agency Plus.
Fuck these pork loving congressional bastards. We don't need SLS at all. It makes absolutely no sense to spent all that money developing a launch system that's probably going to be more expensive and less reliable than what we can simply buy from the market.