I'm waiting for the secret handshake login device. Yeah, I'd pay for that. I just hope I don't have to change the handshake every 90 days. I'm not sure I could come up with all that many cool ones.
and it's boring talking to other women because they get so offended by my off-color remarks that every guy at work finds hilarious.
I've found that a lot of women at work can be more crude than any guys would dare to be. Women can get away with it because they know no guy will ever be offended by it. Guys, on the other hand, have to worry about the things we say offending one of the women. The worst are the women that you never know which side of the fence they are going to fall on. Example, on a conference call we were talking about our weekends...
My PM: He took me to $someplace and we did $something... so, I had to put out.
Me: That seems fair. After all, he did pay for $someplace and $something.
My PM: (Getting serious) I can't believe you said that. You men are all alike, blah, blah, blah.
Me: WTF? You opened the door for the joke.
The problem is that women don't appreciate a good fart joke when they hear one.
I don't know the women you're hanging out with, but most of my female friends appreciate a good fart joke.
I'll jump in here because I think you're wrong.
If you'd read the news and read the Bible, you'd understand better than we are in the midst of prophetic events forecast thousands of years ago...
My 10th grade english teacher had a fascination for scenes in books that she interpreted to symbolize the Garden of Eden. If there was a tree in the book, she interpreted it to symbolize the Garden of Eden, even if the tree was just mentioned in passing. Does that mean she was right? I don't think so. You can read the Bible and find similarities to current events if you want to. But, I think that's all you're doing, reading into the Bible things that are not true.
Answer me one question. 2000 years ago, there were certainly earthquakes all over the world. Men were lovers of money. They were greedy and adulterous. These things were not new 2000 years ago, have not changed since then and are not likely to change any time soon. So, given that these are your sure signs of impending doom, what makes you think that the end of days is drawing near now? Why now? Why not 1000 years ago? Why not 1000 years from now?
the Bible being inerrant in my belief
This, I believe, is your biggest mistake, as well as the biggest mistake of many believers. I believe that the Bible was written to be a guide. I don't think it was ever meant to be interpreted literally. I think the basic message of the Bible is "Believe in God, treat each other well, and you will reap the rewards in heaven." I think the parts about believing in God and reaping rewards in heaven are only there to entice people to treat each other well. Then again, I could be wrong.
As one who believes in evolution, I have no idea where all of the "stuff" came from originally. I don't try to answer that question because I think it is ultimately unanswerable. But, I won't attribute all of the stuff to a higher being simply because I can't answer the question of where it came from. In other words, "my inability to prove you wrong is not proof that you are right." - I'm too lazy to look up the person who said it
I have a burning question for you, actually more like a series of questions. Where did the Supreme Being come from? Was he there before the stuff? If there was no stuff originally, why was there a god? Why would a god create all of this stuff?
It seems clear to me that the "stuff" got here one of two ways:
1. It was always here.
2. A god was always here. This god created the stuff.
Either way you look at it, something was always here. Adding a god into the equation just seems unnecessary to me.
I think German citizens should be able to spout Nazi propaganda, anti-semitism, etc if they want to. If you outlaw that kind of speech, where do you draw the line?
I also don't think the Chinese government should censor content. However, I don't believe Google is evil for complying with the rules of the Chinese government.
It's almost as if you believe we big, bad Americans sit around all day trying to think of how we can make life more miserable for people in other countries.
The simple fact is that people everywhere should look out for themselves. It's not my concern how some guy in India is going to feed his family. That's his concern. I am worried about my own family.
Can you not mentally separate the two issues? Just because I don't want to lose the lifestyle that I have become accustomed to does not mean that I don't want the poor in India to have a chance at improving their life. I hope the economic situation in India improves. I hope that they all get access to education and a better life. I just don't want to pay for it. Is it really that hard to understand?
Let me put it another way. Pretend the situations were reversed, and India was the wealthy country outsourcing to the US. Do you think the Indians who were hurt by it would just accept it because 'those poor US citizens need it more'? Or, would they rather want to keep what they have?
I'm told that in the US most people work away individually at their tasks.
My experiences are that we have a meeting when tasks are assigned where we discuss how everyone's tasks fit into the overall project. Then, we work individually on our tasks. If one of my tasks has a dependency on someone else then I will work with that person to be sure we both know what is expected of each other. We also have status meetings where we discuss issues that have come up or any problems that we are having.
I'm told that people don't ask each other for help because it affects their likelihood of promotion.
It's not uncommon for me to ask or receive a question like "Hey Steve, this method is acting funny. Have you run into the problem before? Or, can you take a look at it?" We always encourage people to ask for help before it becomes a real problem. Having said that, I have worked with a couple people that didn't like asking for help and were always overstepping the scope of their work or not fulfilling it. Fortunately, these have been a small minority of people. And, I think it had more to do with their personality type than any hopes of promotion.
they can't believe how little gets done in your 70 hours
I find the biggest impediment to getting work done is office politics, and that happens everywhere around the world. The only people I know that work 70 hours a week are people that create their own problems. They are process people on the business side, and not technical. And, they are usually the people creating the political problems that slow us down from getting work done. My team doesn't work itself to death for their last minute "crises".
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are only partially right. I have a hard time believing how little work actually gets done, but I also realize it's not the techies that are causing the delays. And, my experience with other countries has led me to believe that they are not any more productive. This comes after working on projects with people in several different countries throughout Latin America, Europe, and Asia. But, this is just one man's experience.
The standard joke about this is that if you ask five different economists the same question you'll get five different answers, six if one went to Harvard.
I can't remember who originally made the joke and I'm too lazy to look it up.
Here are a couple of ways that I have used to meet my neighbors in the past.
1) When you see someone new moving in, ask if they need help. If they do need help, then you've made a new friend. If they don't need help, introduce yourself anyway. Just say something like "Well, my name is xxxx and I live in apartment number yyyy. If there is anything you need, just come and ask." Your neighbor feels welcomed and you don't actually have to carry any boxes. I have offered this service quite a few times and have never had anyone say that they needed help moving stuff. But, I have made several friends this way.
2) Invite some of your friends over to play board games or watch a football game. Make/order some food and pick up some beer. When you see your neighbors a couple days before your party, introduce yourself. Say "Hi, we've never been formally introduced. I'm xxxx and I live in apartment number yyyy. I'm having some friends over tomorrow for some board games. Maybe you and your husband/wife would like to stop by."
3) This one may not work for a lot of you, due to a lack of hurricanes in most places. During hurricane Charlie I met some of my neighbors because we were all sitting out on the front porch, getting drunk, and watching the storm.
Could i-neighbors help break the ice in my building?
In your situation, I would skip i-neighbors and go straight to an invitation to a party. If you are planning on having a labor day party with your friends, it won't cost you anything to invite your neghbors. I wouldn't plan on it wth just your neighbors though. People often have plans for holiday weekends and won't be able to go.
The bottom line is that you often have to make the first step. If you've never been the person to break the ice, then it can be a little intimidating. You just have to bite the bullet and do it.
Most of the Brits that I've known (only about 10 people) have said that Americans tend to be more polite than Brits. Of course, it could be that the Brits I know live around the surliest people in Britain.
Free speech does not mean that you can protest anywhere you like at any time.
The "free speech zones" that the person is referring to took place at events where Bush was speaking. At least, the articles that I read about them said so. I haven't attended any events where Bush was speaking so I can't tell you for certain if it's true or not. The people with anti-Bush/Republican signs were made to stand in a "free speech zone" about half of a mile away. As an American I am appalled at this.
But, once you decide to assemble in a public space, if such an assembly prevents the rest of the public to travel conveniently, etc., you are then imposing yourself on others.
This is very true and I think that is how it should be. But, if you get the proper permits you can assemble in public space. The events in question were permitted and the Bush supporters were allowed voice their approval. The anti-Bush crowd was made to stand a long distance off where no camera would see them.
Bashing the US is the norm on slashdot. If this story was reversed (the US wanting to limit what people can say and EU wanting total freedom of speech) you would see a lot of self-righteous posts about how the US is turning into a police/corporate state. See any argument about patents/DMCA/PATRIOT Act for evidence. As it is, most of the discussion I have seen on this topic is about the merits of limiting free speech.
People, stop buying cd's and support your indi sites and shops. Or, wait for it, make your own music.
I have three points to make about this:
1. Indie music sounds like a good alternative until you realize that most of it sucks even worse than most of the tripe they play on the radio.
2. I have stopped buying new cd's. I only buy them used. This way the money goes to the shop instead of the labels. The artists may not get any of my money, but they got their share from the person who bought the cd new.
3. Nobody wants to hear music that I make. I just don't have the patience or desire to learn to play an instrument. Music is something that takes to much time to learn how to do for everyone to start making their own music. In theory, though, making your own music is a great idea.
But this does not translate into a high standard of living. For one thing, it encourages illegality
I was working with a group in Brazil for about a year. What I found was that the company didn't want to hire regular employees because of all of the worker rights. Almost every employee in the company was a contractor, even the first two levels of management were contractors. Basically, they did this because it costs too much money to get rid of an employee regardless of the reason.
In Brazil a typical restaurant meal, for instance, will cost about US$4. You can buy a new car for less than US$5000, or a man's shirt for US$5.
The prices for the meal and the shirt are what I saw when I was in Brazil. I heard that cars were significantly more expensive though. A friend of mine from Brazil explained to me that cars are expensive in Brazil because they are taxed very heavily. He said that cars were more expensive in Brazil than in the US due to the taxes. His exact words were 'In Brazil, cars are cheaper to produce than anywhere else in the world and more expensive to buy than anywhere else in the world.' I'm sure he was exaggerating to make a point, but is that something that has changed in the 15 years since he left Brazil?
I agree that if I was about to have a child, it would be nice to have a 2 year paid paternity/maternity leave. But, I don't think it's an ideal solution. Here are three things that I see wrong with it right away:
1. When Paul Parenthood goes on paternity leave the company has to pay for two people to do one job for two years. You've just raised the cost of doing business considerably. So, businesses will be less likely to hire people.
2. A friend of mine described the situation in Brazil to me. This may be out of date since he left Brazil many years ago. Companies are required to give a woman 6 months maternity leave when she has a child and she practically can not be fired for any reason for two years after going back to work. If they violate this law the company faces a stiff fine. In effect, this law made it almost impossible for a married woman to find a job in Brazil. No employer wants to hire someone who could get pregnant at any time and would require the maternity leave.
3. You've chosen Germany as your example. Germany consistently has unemployment rates considerably higher than the US, even if you do count discouraged people no longer searching for work.
I'm not sure about In-N-Out because I haven't read the book and I've never even heard of In-N-Out. But, Chik-fil-a has a good reputation about how they treat their employees. Managers do make good wages. They offer tuition reimbursement. All Chik-fil-a restaurants are closed on sundays so the employees can attend church if they want to. I'm not sure about the health plan though.
Most dual income families that I know don't need to be dual income. They both work so they can afford to buy a better house and drive nicer cars. The time constraints are due to their own choices. They have chosen to have nice things rather than to take the time to raise their children. In my opinion it's a very bad trade. Children don't get the attention that they need in day care. Thus, when I get married it will be to someone who would rather stay home and raise our children than drive a new car. You have to decide what is more important to you.
I don't have children but I have a lot of neices and nephews and friends with children. And, I see that the children from single income homes are generally better behaved and respect their parents' decisions more than those from dual income homes. The reason for this is partly because they don't have the "time constraints" and don't have to give in to the convenience factor. Thus, going to McDonalds is a rare treat and not a regular occurance.
My parents are on the South Beach diet (most of the time). The way it works is that you cut out carbs for the first couple of weeks and slowly reintroduce them into your diet. It is geared towards losing weight in the beginning, but leads to healthier eating habits in the end. Like you said, it is about being healthier and not about losing weight.
Dress codes are up to the company. If a company feels that people will be more productive or more professional-looking wearing a suit and tie, it is their decision to enforce it. Some companies reason that you not only have to be able to do the job but you have to look the part too. The reason for this is so other people will also have confidence in you. A dress code is a trade-off you make for having a job. If you don't like a company's dress code then you don't have to work for them. Keep working for companies that don't require a suit and tie. It's that simple.
Personally, I don't want to work for a company that requires a suit either. Atmosphere is one of the things that I consider when interviewing for a job. I'm more than willing to take less money from a company with casual policies than from a rigid company.
What if some of those "other people" have an irrational distrust of people with dark hair and blue eyes?
That truly is an evil combination!
Small abuses may very well make it easier to perpetuate large ones. I haven't done enough research to form any conclusion on it and I don't plan to. I just don't want you to confuse things you don't like with human rights abuses. I hate peas but I don't think making your children eat peas is a violation of their basic human rights.
Looking ahead to determine the problems that will be caused by living forever is short-sighted? In fact it's quite the opposite. You're the one that is dismissing the problem by saying the there are tons of solutions. Terraform a planet? Please propose a realistic solution. You don't even know that space exploration will find a planet with close enough charcteristics to be terraformed.
It has nothing to do with egos. It's more about the fact that we want to leave our children a place worth living in. We realize that nature requires some sort of equilibrium. Animals understand this instinctively. It's the reason that predators don't kill more prey than they need. If they do then there won't be any food next year.
If people live for 1000 years overpopulation will definitely be a problem. It will be even if some of us do decide to die at 70 rather than go through treatment to extend our life. Not only will there be a skyscraper where your house is currently, but a large portion of the land that is currently undeveloped would need to be developed. Where will you grow food for all of these people? What will you do with the waste? What plants will still be around to produce the oxygen that you need to breath?
What it ultimately comes down to is that the planet can only sustain so many people. Death is a part of life. Everyone dies. Accept it. Stop wasting your precious time reading slashdot and go do the things that you want to do now, while you still have the time. If you do that and lead a full life, I believe you will be content and you will not feel the need to live forever.
As a renter whose brothers and sisters own houses I have to call BS on your BS call. There are two reasons that I don't buy a house:
1. I don't want to do all of the maintenance, mow the lawn, etc. I do enough maintenance on my sister's house for her. I don't want to have to do the same things for my own house. It is FAR easier to rent.
2. I don't know that I am going to be living here for the next two years. It essentially takes two years of paying your mortgage for it to make good financial sense. Until then, you're just paying the interest and you don't get much tangible in return. Anything less than two years and you would be better off renting.
Besides, the grandparent post said it was easier to rent. You claimed he was wrong and then shifted to a new argument, that money spent on rent is wasted. They are two different arguments.
If you pay two thousand a month in rent, you either live in a large expensive city or you are getting ripped off. Consider moving to an apartment outside of the city, where they are cheaper, and taking the commuter train (many large cities have them) to work in the city. You can probably add the cash you will save to your down payment fund. Of course, this hinges on a couple of assumptions such as the availability of mass transportation.
Why don't you take up a collection for the guy? Personally, I see this as a hard lesson that the guy just learned. If a company is promising you money then you should get it in a contract! If a company won't put it in a contract, you have two choices:
1. Tell them that you need the funds up front so you can afford to dedicate yourself to the project. If they won't do that, then you work on the project as time and money allow from your personal schedule and budget. You don't go into debt on the promise that a company is going to give you money. If it is important enough to the company they will give him the money or put it in a contract.
2. Don't do the work. If you do, don't complain about the losses you incur. It's your own bad choices that create the debt.
While the company might have done something sleazy, they have no legal obligation to pay him anything. He should not have sacrificed those funds on something so flimsy as a copmany's promise.
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 1999-2004 Senate election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 29, 2004.
I believe that number ($157,000) is based on the entire 1999-2004 cycle. This page shows that he has only received $932,737 in contributions this year, which doesn't agree with the number on the pages you cited at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm waiting for the secret handshake login device. Yeah, I'd pay for that. I just hope I don't have to change the handshake every 90 days. I'm not sure I could come up with all that many cool ones.
and it's boring talking to other women because they get so offended by my off-color remarks that every guy at work finds hilarious.
I've found that a lot of women at work can be more crude than any guys would dare to be. Women can get away with it because they know no guy will ever be offended by it. Guys, on the other hand, have to worry about the things we say offending one of the women. The worst are the women that you never know which side of the fence they are going to fall on. Example, on a conference call we were talking about our weekends...
My PM: He took me to $someplace and we did $something... so, I had to put out.
Me: That seems fair. After all, he did pay for $someplace and $something.
My PM: (Getting serious) I can't believe you said that. You men are all alike, blah, blah, blah.
Me: WTF? You opened the door for the joke.
The problem is that women don't appreciate a good fart joke when they hear one.
I don't know the women you're hanging out with, but most of my female friends appreciate a good fart joke.
I'll jump in here because I think you're wrong. If you'd read the news and read the Bible, you'd understand better than we are in the midst of prophetic events forecast thousands of years ago... My 10th grade english teacher had a fascination for scenes in books that she interpreted to symbolize the Garden of Eden. If there was a tree in the book, she interpreted it to symbolize the Garden of Eden, even if the tree was just mentioned in passing. Does that mean she was right? I don't think so. You can read the Bible and find similarities to current events if you want to. But, I think that's all you're doing, reading into the Bible things that are not true. Answer me one question. 2000 years ago, there were certainly earthquakes all over the world. Men were lovers of money. They were greedy and adulterous. These things were not new 2000 years ago, have not changed since then and are not likely to change any time soon. So, given that these are your sure signs of impending doom, what makes you think that the end of days is drawing near now? Why now? Why not 1000 years ago? Why not 1000 years from now? the Bible being inerrant in my belief This, I believe, is your biggest mistake, as well as the biggest mistake of many believers. I believe that the Bible was written to be a guide. I don't think it was ever meant to be interpreted literally. I think the basic message of the Bible is "Believe in God, treat each other well, and you will reap the rewards in heaven." I think the parts about believing in God and reaping rewards in heaven are only there to entice people to treat each other well. Then again, I could be wrong.
As one who believes in evolution, I have no idea where all of the "stuff" came from originally. I don't try to answer that question because I think it is ultimately unanswerable. But, I won't attribute all of the stuff to a higher being simply because I can't answer the question of where it came from. In other words, "my inability to prove you wrong is not proof that you are right." - I'm too lazy to look up the person who said it
I have a burning question for you, actually more like a series of questions. Where did the Supreme Being come from? Was he there before the stuff? If there was no stuff originally, why was there a god? Why would a god create all of this stuff?
It seems clear to me that the "stuff" got here one of two ways:
1. It was always here.
2. A god was always here. This god created the stuff.
Either way you look at it, something was always here. Adding a god into the equation just seems unnecessary to me.
This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but I see two issues arising in the implementation:
1. You have to go out and buy fat girl porn. That will only encourage the fat girl porn industry.
2. You have to look at fat girl porn to make sure you send them the pages with the most revolting material.
That's a higher price than I am willing to pay.
I think German citizens should be able to spout Nazi propaganda, anti-semitism, etc if they want to. If you outlaw that kind of speech, where do you draw the line? I also don't think the Chinese government should censor content. However, I don't believe Google is evil for complying with the rules of the Chinese government.
It's almost as if you believe we big, bad Americans sit around all day trying to think of how we can make life more miserable for people in other countries.
The simple fact is that people everywhere should look out for themselves. It's not my concern how some guy in India is going to feed his family. That's his concern. I am worried about my own family.
Can you not mentally separate the two issues? Just because I don't want to lose the lifestyle that I have become accustomed to does not mean that I don't want the poor in India to have a chance at improving their life. I hope the economic situation in India improves. I hope that they all get access to education and a better life. I just don't want to pay for it. Is it really that hard to understand?
Let me put it another way. Pretend the situations were reversed, and India was the wealthy country outsourcing to the US. Do you think the Indians who were hurt by it would just accept it because 'those poor US citizens need it more'? Or, would they rather want to keep what they have?
I'm told that in the US most people work away individually at their tasks.
My experiences are that we have a meeting when tasks are assigned where we discuss how everyone's tasks fit into the overall project. Then, we work individually on our tasks. If one of my tasks has a dependency on someone else then I will work with that person to be sure we both know what is expected of each other. We also have status meetings where we discuss issues that have come up or any problems that we are having.
I'm told that people don't ask each other for help because it affects their likelihood of promotion.
It's not uncommon for me to ask or receive a question like "Hey Steve, this method is acting funny. Have you run into the problem before? Or, can you take a look at it?" We always encourage people to ask for help before it becomes a real problem. Having said that, I have worked with a couple people that didn't like asking for help and were always overstepping the scope of their work or not fulfilling it. Fortunately, these have been a small minority of people. And, I think it had more to do with their personality type than any hopes of promotion.
they can't believe how little gets done in your 70 hours
I find the biggest impediment to getting work done is office politics, and that happens everywhere around the world. The only people I know that work 70 hours a week are people that create their own problems. They are process people on the business side, and not technical. And, they are usually the people creating the political problems that slow us down from getting work done. My team doesn't work itself to death for their last minute "crises".
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are only partially right. I have a hard time believing how little work actually gets done, but I also realize it's not the techies that are causing the delays. And, my experience with other countries has led me to believe that they are not any more productive. This comes after working on projects with people in several different countries throughout Latin America, Europe, and Asia. But, this is just one man's experience.
The standard joke about this is that if you ask five different economists the same question you'll get five different answers, six if one went to Harvard.
I can't remember who originally made the joke and I'm too lazy to look it up.
Here are a couple of ways that I have used to meet my neighbors in the past.
1) When you see someone new moving in, ask if they need help. If they do need help, then you've made a new friend. If they don't need help, introduce yourself anyway. Just say something like "Well, my name is xxxx and I live in apartment number yyyy. If there is anything you need, just come and ask." Your neighbor feels welcomed and you don't actually have to carry any boxes. I have offered this service quite a few times and have never had anyone say that they needed help moving stuff. But, I have made several friends this way.
2) Invite some of your friends over to play board games or watch a football game. Make/order some food and pick up some beer. When you see your neighbors a couple days before your party, introduce yourself. Say "Hi, we've never been formally introduced. I'm xxxx and I live in apartment number yyyy. I'm having some friends over tomorrow for some board games. Maybe you and your husband/wife would like to stop by."
3) This one may not work for a lot of you, due to a lack of hurricanes in most places. During hurricane Charlie I met some of my neighbors because we were all sitting out on the front porch, getting drunk, and watching the storm.
Could i-neighbors help break the ice in my building?
In your situation, I would skip i-neighbors and go straight to an invitation to a party. If you are planning on having a labor day party with your friends, it won't cost you anything to invite your neghbors. I wouldn't plan on it wth just your neighbors though. People often have plans for holiday weekends and won't be able to go.
The bottom line is that you often have to make the first step. If you've never been the person to break the ice, then it can be a little intimidating. You just have to bite the bullet and do it.
Most of the Brits that I've known (only about 10 people) have said that Americans tend to be more polite than Brits. Of course, it could be that the Brits I know live around the surliest people in Britain.
Free speech does not mean that you can protest anywhere you like at any time.
The "free speech zones" that the person is referring to took place at events where Bush was speaking. At least, the articles that I read about them said so. I haven't attended any events where Bush was speaking so I can't tell you for certain if it's true or not. The people with anti-Bush/Republican signs were made to stand in a "free speech zone" about half of a mile away. As an American I am appalled at this.
But, once you decide to assemble in a public space, if such an assembly prevents the rest of the public to travel conveniently, etc., you are then imposing yourself on others.
This is very true and I think that is how it should be. But, if you get the proper permits you can assemble in public space. The events in question were permitted and the Bush supporters were allowed voice their approval. The anti-Bush crowd was made to stand a long distance off where no camera would see them.
Bashing the US is the norm on slashdot. If this story was reversed (the US wanting to limit what people can say and EU wanting total freedom of speech) you would see a lot of self-righteous posts about how the US is turning into a police/corporate state. See any argument about patents/DMCA/PATRIOT Act for evidence. As it is, most of the discussion I have seen on this topic is about the merits of limiting free speech.
People, stop buying cd's and support your indi sites and shops. Or, wait for it, make your own music.
I have three points to make about this:
1. Indie music sounds like a good alternative until you realize that most of it sucks even worse than most of the tripe they play on the radio.
2. I have stopped buying new cd's. I only buy them used. This way the money goes to the shop instead of the labels. The artists may not get any of my money, but they got their share from the person who bought the cd new.
3. Nobody wants to hear music that I make. I just don't have the patience or desire to learn to play an instrument. Music is something that takes to much time to learn how to do for everyone to start making their own music. In theory, though, making your own music is a great idea.
But this does not translate into a high standard of living. For one thing, it encourages illegality
I was working with a group in Brazil for about a year. What I found was that the company didn't want to hire regular employees because of all of the worker rights. Almost every employee in the company was a contractor, even the first two levels of management were contractors. Basically, they did this because it costs too much money to get rid of an employee regardless of the reason.
In Brazil a typical restaurant meal, for instance, will cost about US$4. You can buy a new car for less than US$5000, or a man's shirt for US$5.
The prices for the meal and the shirt are what I saw when I was in Brazil. I heard that cars were significantly more expensive though. A friend of mine from Brazil explained to me that cars are expensive in Brazil because they are taxed very heavily. He said that cars were more expensive in Brazil than in the US due to the taxes. His exact words were 'In Brazil, cars are cheaper to produce than anywhere else in the world and more expensive to buy than anywhere else in the world.' I'm sure he was exaggerating to make a point, but is that something that has changed in the 15 years since he left Brazil?
I agree that if I was about to have a child, it would be nice to have a 2 year paid paternity/maternity leave. But, I don't think it's an ideal solution. Here are three things that I see wrong with it right away:
1. When Paul Parenthood goes on paternity leave the company has to pay for two people to do one job for two years. You've just raised the cost of doing business considerably. So, businesses will be less likely to hire people.
2. A friend of mine described the situation in Brazil to me. This may be out of date since he left Brazil many years ago. Companies are required to give a woman 6 months maternity leave when she has a child and she practically can not be fired for any reason for two years after going back to work. If they violate this law the company faces a stiff fine. In effect, this law made it almost impossible for a married woman to find a job in Brazil. No employer wants to hire someone who could get pregnant at any time and would require the maternity leave.
3. You've chosen Germany as your example. Germany consistently has unemployment rates considerably higher than the US, even if you do count discouraged people no longer searching for work.
I'm not sure about In-N-Out because I haven't read the book and I've never even heard of In-N-Out. But, Chik-fil-a has a good reputation about how they treat their employees. Managers do make good wages. They offer tuition reimbursement. All Chik-fil-a restaurants are closed on sundays so the employees can attend church if they want to. I'm not sure about the health plan though.
Most dual income families that I know don't need to be dual income. They both work so they can afford to buy a better house and drive nicer cars. The time constraints are due to their own choices. They have chosen to have nice things rather than to take the time to raise their children. In my opinion it's a very bad trade. Children don't get the attention that they need in day care. Thus, when I get married it will be to someone who would rather stay home and raise our children than drive a new car. You have to decide what is more important to you.
I don't have children but I have a lot of neices and nephews and friends with children. And, I see that the children from single income homes are generally better behaved and respect their parents' decisions more than those from dual income homes. The reason for this is partly because they don't have the "time constraints" and don't have to give in to the convenience factor. Thus, going to McDonalds is a rare treat and not a regular occurance.
My parents are on the South Beach diet (most of the time). The way it works is that you cut out carbs for the first couple of weeks and slowly reintroduce them into your diet. It is geared towards losing weight in the beginning, but leads to healthier eating habits in the end. Like you said, it is about being healthier and not about losing weight.
Dress codes are up to the company. If a company feels that people will be more productive or more professional-looking wearing a suit and tie, it is their decision to enforce it. Some companies reason that you not only have to be able to do the job but you have to look the part too. The reason for this is so other people will also have confidence in you. A dress code is a trade-off you make for having a job. If you don't like a company's dress code then you don't have to work for them. Keep working for companies that don't require a suit and tie. It's that simple.
Personally, I don't want to work for a company that requires a suit either. Atmosphere is one of the things that I consider when interviewing for a job. I'm more than willing to take less money from a company with casual policies than from a rigid company.
What if some of those "other people" have an irrational distrust of people with dark hair and blue eyes?
That truly is an evil combination!
Small abuses may very well make it easier to perpetuate large ones. I haven't done enough research to form any conclusion on it and I don't plan to. I just don't want you to confuse things you don't like with human rights abuses. I hate peas but I don't think making your children eat peas is a violation of their basic human rights.
Life is full of shitty compromises.
Looking ahead to determine the problems that will be caused by living forever is short-sighted? In fact it's quite the opposite. You're the one that is dismissing the problem by saying the there are tons of solutions. Terraform a planet? Please propose a realistic solution. You don't even know that space exploration will find a planet with close enough charcteristics to be terraformed.
It has nothing to do with egos. It's more about the fact that we want to leave our children a place worth living in. We realize that nature requires some sort of equilibrium. Animals understand this instinctively. It's the reason that predators don't kill more prey than they need. If they do then there won't be any food next year.
If people live for 1000 years overpopulation will definitely be a problem. It will be even if some of us do decide to die at 70 rather than go through treatment to extend our life. Not only will there be a skyscraper where your house is currently, but a large portion of the land that is currently undeveloped would need to be developed. Where will you grow food for all of these people? What will you do with the waste? What plants will still be around to produce the oxygen that you need to breath?
What it ultimately comes down to is that the planet can only sustain so many people. Death is a part of life. Everyone dies. Accept it. Stop wasting your precious time reading slashdot and go do the things that you want to do now, while you still have the time. If you do that and lead a full life, I believe you will be content and you will not feel the need to live forever.
As a renter whose brothers and sisters own houses I have to call BS on your BS call. There are two reasons that I don't buy a house:
1. I don't want to do all of the maintenance, mow the lawn, etc. I do enough maintenance on my sister's house for her. I don't want to have to do the same things for my own house. It is FAR easier to rent.
2. I don't know that I am going to be living here for the next two years. It essentially takes two years of paying your mortgage for it to make good financial sense. Until then, you're just paying the interest and you don't get much tangible in return. Anything less than two years and you would be better off renting.
Besides, the grandparent post said it was easier to rent. You claimed he was wrong and then shifted to a new argument, that money spent on rent is wasted. They are two different arguments.
If you pay two thousand a month in rent, you either live in a large expensive city or you are getting ripped off. Consider moving to an apartment outside of the city, where they are cheaper, and taking the commuter train (many large cities have them) to work in the city. You can probably add the cash you will save to your down payment fund. Of course, this hinges on a couple of assumptions such as the availability of mass transportation.
Somebody should take a collection
Why don't you take up a collection for the guy? Personally, I see this as a hard lesson that the guy just learned. If a company is promising you money then you should get it in a contract! If a company won't put it in a contract, you have two choices:
1. Tell them that you need the funds up front so you can afford to dedicate yourself to the project. If they won't do that, then you work on the project as time and money allow from your personal schedule and budget. You don't go into debt on the promise that a company is going to give you money. If it is important enough to the company they will give him the money or put it in a contract.
2. Don't do the work. If you do, don't complain about the losses you incur. It's your own bad choices that create the debt.
While the company might have done something sleazy, they have no legal obligation to pay him anything. He should not have sacrificed those funds on something so flimsy as a copmany's promise.
I highly recommend "muddin'" for those of you who have never tried it. It is a lot of fun.
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 1999-2004 Senate election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 29, 2004.
I believe that number ($157,000) is based on the entire 1999-2004 cycle. This page shows that he has only received $932,737 in contributions this year, which doesn't agree with the number on the pages you cited at all.