Next time read the article, this has nothing to do with the difference between stock options and stocks. It has everything to do with the difference in the stock option contracts between companies.
Specifically, the issue is that normally stock options once vested (ie: you can exercise them) do not expire after an employee leaves a company. In this case they did and the language of the contract did not at all make that clear.
Yes the US was such a socialist haven in 1882 when it limited Chinese immigration. Or 1921 when Congress legislated immigration quotas for all immigrants. And of course, there were no cries against the drunk Irish immigrants taking all the jobs and leaving Americans unemployed in the late 1800s. Nope, none at all.
So no, that's not the real issue and hasn't been at any point the last 200 years that this has been a perceived problem.
Then again I suppose knowing American history makes one un-American, eh?
No, we don't. The organised labour movement which actually reduced working hours is older than you seem to think.
It'd be interesting to see how much of that depends on modern transportation and communication system that you decry so much. You cannot claim massive corporations are evil but then expect every other large organization to function just as well as before.
Obvious sexist thinking. Women are no longer "slaves of the household" because war killed lots of men, not because they no longer had to wash the dishes. Compare improved worker conditions following the Black Death.
Wow, you seriously underestimate the effort needed to maintain a household before modern appliances and conveniences don't you.
It's true that universal healthcare services have provided analgesics to more people. The progress of adult medicine is consistently overrated, though - life expectancy improvements have mostly been about reducing infant mortality.
The average male age 20 can expect to live for an extra 15 years compared to the 1900, the average female for an extra 20 years.
Define "comfort".
Air conditioning.
So what?
Many people consider this one of the most valuable parts of living. So congratulations on showing that your definition of a "good life" is not in sync with that of many people.
Not only are you are looking at a distorted view of history that you think you'd enjoy living in but then you're claiming that everyone would be better off.
Well, not always. Today we have "care in the community", a euphemism for making them walk the streets until they commit some crime and can be locked up. I know it's difficult for people who have swallowed the fallacy of the rational human mind to believe it, but some people are a danger to themselves or others and need residential care, sometimes involuntarily.
But thanks to privatisation of certain residential care facilities, we witness precisely the abuse of a hundred years ago.
There are failures but nothing is perfect. I know quite a few people who now lead successful lives due to treatment but a century ago would have been locked up. That's not countering the ones who would have been locked up for "female hysteria."
Sometimes. Laws since the 1980s across the Western world have severely restricted support for the poor.
Yet it is nonetheless much better than it was a century ago.
One hundred years ago you could plot a small sphere round where you are and stuff would carry on even if every man outside that sphere stopped working. Today your sphere is going to have to cover the world. The modern man is the very model of enabled impotence.
And because of that we can achieve what a man 100 years ago could only dream of.
You have a twisted and distorted view of history. Like many people who pine for the "good ol' days" you don't see why we moved away from them.
We work fewer hours than the average man 100 years back could imagine. Women are no longer slaves of the household thanks to devices that shave hours off of household tasks. Our standard of health would make a person from the early 1900s weep in joy, especially if they have a toothache. We live in much greater comfort and can travel around. The mentally ill aren't locked in dark asylums and the poor can even get government funding (rather than the historical option of starving to death or begging a rich person for help). The average person can learn more than they could ever before and practical access to education is less restricted than ever before.
The US has been a consumerist society for decades and decades. People have been saying it will ruin us all for just as long.
One thing you learn from reading old science fiction is that "modern" problems are anything but modern.
Re:BitCoins are simply a hobby, not a currency
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 1
All those things were created in the 19 century. They became the infrastructure, upon which the 20th century could continue creating.
And most of those things are based on innovations from the 1700s.
You are confounding together unrelated things, innovation and economics growth as separate in many ways. The space shuttle was a brilliant piece of innovative engineering but utterly worthless to the economy.
A steam powered washing machine that no one uses is of little consequence. An inexpensive electric one that everyone can own is of great consequence.
You believe for some reason that small but numerous recessions and depressions are bad for the overall economy, and you are not alone in this mistaken belief.
You know what, I'll take the word of leading economists over soem random guy on slashdot.
Re:BitCoins are simply a hobby, not a currency
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 1
In 19 century USA the value of dollar was growing, not falling, yet the economy of USA was also growing very quickly, as innovation and businesses was increasing, not falling.
Except it wasn't. Overall the economic growth as best I could find data for was, population growth adjusted, lower in the 1800s than in the 1900s. Not much lower (ie: 2% vs. 2.3%) but lower nonetheless. Surprised me as well but I can't find anything that say otherwise. I have read arguments that the lack of inflation (due to a limited money supply) constrained further growth.
Then there's all the recessions and depressions, as someone pointed out, there were a lot more frequent back then and covered more time.
This is a much smaller molecule than glucose, so it is only logical that glucose could be isolated (other sugars are not as important, since all vital sugars except glucose for some reason, can be synthesized).
Next time read even a wikipedia article before spouting wrong and worthless bullshit. It'll make everyone's life easier.
Pulse oximeters measure the relative ratio between hemoglobin that is bound to an oxygen molecule and hemoglobin that is not bound to an oxygen molecule. It doesn't measure the amount of hemoglobin much less the amount of oxygen. Measuring the actual amount of anything would require correcting perfectly for all other sources of absorption in real time which is likely near impossible.
Christ, you conspiracy nuts really are the dumbest life forms on this planet.
There is however a truth or close to one. If you implement all possible options in parallel universes then one will do better given however you weight better. This isn't philosophy, the aim of a debate on policy is to get as close to that best option as possible or to at least understand the pros/cons of various options.
In other words, it's science and not religion. Religion is people yelling at each other "I believe X because I believe it." Science is people yelling at each other "I believe X because this data says so." The later has practical value, the former does not (aside from entertainment).
Especially once you start making concrete statements "most people are X" or " most artists do it because of X" then you need to support them. Otherwise it's two people saying "it's X" and "no it's not X" back and forth for seventy posts. The "winner" is then the person who is more charismatic or stubborn. Not that their side isn't better by any rational or objective measure. That's Fox News or a pissing match, not an informed debate.
It's crucial one knows the difference and doesn't deceive themselves into thinking their views have actual meat behind them when they don't in fact. It's a dangerous trap to fall into mentally and we're all too irrationally human to avoid it most of the time.
I usually don't bother writing any of this however the person I replied to seemed like someone who might benefit and actually improve their knowledge of the issues.
Your counter-arguments boil down to "it's this way because I say so." You provide no studies, research or numbers to back up your claims. You make grand claims with nothing of substance to back them. Disjointed anecdotes and rhetoric. I've long ago learned not to trust anecdotes or random guesses at how many people are X.
Of course, my post was no better but then again I'm not writing two page posts or making that many grand claims.. Seriously, even online I generally expect people who are as into something as you to have something of substance.
No, it would take more than that. In fact, I'd say that the number one reform we need is to stop automatically granting copyrights; we need to require registrations and impose some strict formalities. A system of short overall terms comprised of even shorter initial and renewal terms would probably be number two, and a broad exception for non-commercial infringement by natural persons would probably be number three.
Congratulations, you're just killed 90% of open source software. And 90% of works created by individual artists and 90% of works put online by individuals.
Those are all entities who cannot afford to copyright all their works. It's simply not economically feasible especially if they create many small works. Nonetheless they benefit from having copyright protection as it prevents excessive outright copying.
Large corporations, who are the real source of problems, would simply pay the to them trivial fees for copyright and get on with their day. Trolls would probably also copyright the works of others, who didn't have the money to do it themselves, and then sue those who use them. That would be a fun lawsuit to see.
Who actually kills more people in their chase for money, is it government or is it a private company?
This has anything with the question at hand, why exactly?
and private businesses, for the absence of government intervention at least are working on bringing something useful to the economy, while governments are by design destructive to it.
I'll quoting this for future reference.
If they do so and cause accidents that hurt people, they should be sued and there shouldn't be government guaranteed liability limit to how much you can sue a business owner or a manager, so there is the real problem of negligent companies: governments provide them with the incentive to be negligent via "limited liability" status granted to the corporations by governments.
Limited liability means nothing, life is not whatever insane libertarian utopia you think it is, companies will find every single way to get out of paying. Since they have more power than those suing them they are much better at doing it. Destroying evidence, intimidation, legal chaff, payed off experts and so on and so on.
Of course, you fail to realize that suing someone is dependent on a government. For both the underlying legal system, judicial system to arbitrate and enforcement of the judgment.
- and all that is needed is for people to actually own their property, rather than thinking that government owns it, so any piece of property needs an owner, who will care about what is happening on his property and be able to defend it in court.
If they can find out who did it ($$$), prove who did it ($$$) and then manage to sue them successfully ($$$). History has showed that companies are very good at getting out of such problems by use of superior money reserves. Landowners often sue corporations for damaging their land, they often lose. That is fact, your own insane view of reality is not.
As to the mandates not to dump oil and car batteries - actually this is about the private citizens, customers of the companies, it's really a mandate on the customers whether they can or cannot just dump oil all over the place.
You said companies are making recycling programs of their own volition. They are not. Laws are making them do that. Stop trying to weasel out of what you said by shifting the argument.
If somebody tries to dump their shit on your property, it's really between them and you, and has nothing to do with government.
So you mean you have to pick up a gun and attack the entity doing the dumping? After all, without the government that is your only alternative.
1. Government makes companies too big.
Prove it, history has showed that the natural state for corporation is to grow into giant monopolies. Without a government, the corporation will become governments.
2. When resources such as air are polluted, then it's more than grievance from just one other land owner, there is a class action lawsuit there, and again, there is no need for any government to stop a polluter, especially if there are no government props protecting the polluter via limited liability, etc.
Corporations will then either unanimously succeed in proving they are doing no harm, good luck proving otherwise without going bankrupt. The alternative is that all corporations will all be sued into oblivion and thus destroy the economy. The government provides a system that keeps either extreme from happening.
- why bother?
So you're saying that you're willfully ignorant? That you willfully ignore learning about the failures corporations and capitalism. I guess I wasted time writing my post. You don't care about the truth at all but about keeping your own pre-existing views intact. You're a zealot. You have belief and damn what the facts say. Sad to be you.
I mean Chernobyl was not a private operation, did you know that?
And Fukushima was. So was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Texas City Refinery explosion. Exxon Valdez oil spill. Three Mile Island accident. Bhopal disaster. Seveso disaster. Minamata disaster. Cuyahoga River fire. Your point?
You can quite seriously write pages and pages and pages on all the ways companies cut corners to save money. Then lied about it or covered it up. They generally only stopped once the government put it's fist down.
If businesses were not stopped from working on nuclear power, they could have the full cycle worked out, just like we do not throw away our car batteries or oil from cars under the bridge, this does not have to be a problem either.
We don't do those things because the government mandates it and enforces those laws. Companies are forced to do those things. They hardly do them of their own volition. Left on their own companies will in fact dump oil into rivers and chuck car batteries into the nearest landfill. They also won't care one bit what people do with their products afterward unless they can turn a profit on it. Go read a history book about what things were like before the 1960s.
private businesses dealt with nuclear materials plainly
Yes, quite plainly. Especially when not telling their employees they were licking radiative material.
Why can't everybody have one, exactly
Because no one would dispose of them safely. Go look up the GoiÃnia accident to see how much effort it takes to clean up even one badly handled piece of highly radioactive material.
History has plainly shown that companies and individuals are selfish pricks who will without a second thought let thousands die for their own profit and convenience.
Go to a cheaper college, middle and bottom tier private schools are a rip-off. Cost the same as top schools but provide no financial aid. Basically, either find a cheaper public school or go to a top 10 private school (where financial aid is godly). Everything in between is a rip-off imho unless your parents are loaded (then who cares).
If you really care then get a masters afterward on your employer's dime at a better school.
Those top schools all give you a full scholarship if your parents make under $100k or some such number. Middle and bottom tier private schools are where the real problem lies. Better to just go to a public school instead.
So congratulations on failing to do your research.
But is it really necessary, if you're going to be a history expert or journalist or historian or programmer?
I'd very much prefer a history expert to have a broad knowledge of history and all it's sides rather than just what interests them.
The view that humans are somehow rational ubermensch is deeply flawed. We're all irrational emotional creatures that often don't even realize it. It's why advertising and conman and salespeople and charismatic assholes work so well. And that inherent irrationality seeps into every single aspect of our lives.
Learning on your own is likely to lead to a limited view of things because your mind isn't a perfectly rational creation hooked up to an oracle. You study what you want at that point in time. College forces you to study broadly and aspects that you may not have chosen otherwise. In the end that leaves you better and more knowledgeable.
They actually compared rates of a certain type of brain cancer between a group of heavy phone users and a group of non-users. The heavy users had double the rate of brain glioma compared to the non-users.
Correlation does not equal causation for a reason. Doing matched studies only fixes the problem in some ways and even then may introduce new problems.
No, but it's certainly a cause for concern and something to spend more time and effort looking into.
A lot of people have looked into it and so far only one study shows any real connection.
The thing is that studies aren't perfect sources of absolute truth, statistical significance only means that the results are unlikely to be pure chance not that they aren't. Do a hundred small studies of the same thing and a couple will say something different than the rest. And that's if no one made any mistakes which does happen more often than you'd expect.
Maybe if you're applying to be an engineer but not as a programmer or network administrator.
Hahahahaha. If you're applying to be a secretary they want a degree. If you're applying to be a mail sorter they want a degree. It's the new high school diploma. Have fun getting rejected from 99% of jobs because either HR or the manager or the co-workers want a degree.
They may not think you have what it takes for you to run a business but if you help out startups or even have your own that is successful, then you have some good references right there.
So you're saying that someone without a degree needs to work much harder and has fewer options (ie: only startups) than someone with one? So you disagree with me how exactly?
Degrees are meaningless for many fields, especially the arts.
They're very useful in the arts assuming you go to an actual art school. Many art jobs are at large companies, quite a boom and those like all such companies strongly hire those with degrees. More importantly art degrees provide actual tangible skills to students.
If you don't believe me then why don't you look at the giant list of successful people who have never gotten degree whether they dropped out or haven't attended.
And you ignore the 1000 other ones that have failed miserably and are barely making rent. I've met them. You haven't it seems. Go expand your field of acquaintances.
Many of those cases you mention would have succeeded no matter what they did because of the family connection and money they had.
If you know how to use your brain, you can get anywhere you want to.
Keep believing that if it makes you sleep better at night.
If not having a degree means that 99 out of a 100 employers don't consider you then you're not going to find a job just as easily. Nor will you find a job that pays as well. That one employer knows exactly how many fewer options you have than a candidate with a degree.
Life is not whatever fantasy world you want it to be. Your value for a company is exactly what they think your value is. No more and no less. A degree makes you more valuable in their eyes and that is all that matters.
There are plenty of reasons for that, psychological (they got degrees and thus consider them of value) to economical. None of them have anything to do with the skills you may gain from a degree.
Unless you actually want to get hired or promoted. You may get lucky or persevere but you won't do as well as someone else with a degree (who put in as much effort).
Slashdot Mirror
Next time read the article, this has nothing to do with the difference between stock options and stocks. It has everything to do with the difference in the stock option contracts between companies.
Specifically, the issue is that normally stock options once vested (ie: you can exercise them) do not expire after an employee leaves a company. In this case they did and the language of the contract did not at all make that clear.
Yes the US was such a socialist haven in 1882 when it limited Chinese immigration. Or 1921 when Congress legislated immigration quotas for all immigrants. And of course, there were no cries against the drunk Irish immigrants taking all the jobs and leaving Americans unemployed in the late 1800s. Nope, none at all.
So no, that's not the real issue and hasn't been at any point the last 200 years that this has been a perceived problem.
Then again I suppose knowing American history makes one un-American, eh?
No, we don't. The organised labour movement which actually reduced working hours is older than you seem to think.
It'd be interesting to see how much of that depends on modern transportation and communication system that you decry so much. You cannot claim massive corporations are evil but then expect every other large organization to function just as well as before.
Obvious sexist thinking. Women are no longer "slaves of the household" because war killed lots of men, not because they no longer had to wash the dishes. Compare improved worker conditions following the Black Death.
Wow, you seriously underestimate the effort needed to maintain a household before modern appliances and conveniences don't you.
It's true that universal healthcare services have provided analgesics to more people. The progress of adult medicine is consistently overrated, though - life expectancy improvements have mostly been about reducing infant mortality.
The average male age 20 can expect to live for an extra 15 years compared to the 1900, the average female for an extra 20 years.
Define "comfort".
Air conditioning.
So what?
Many people consider this one of the most valuable parts of living. So congratulations on showing that your definition of a "good life" is not in sync with that of many people.
Not only are you are looking at a distorted view of history that you think you'd enjoy living in but then you're claiming that everyone would be better off.
Well, not always. Today we have "care in the community", a euphemism for making them walk the streets until they commit some crime and can be locked up. I know it's difficult for people who have swallowed the fallacy of the rational human mind to believe it, but some people are a danger to themselves or others and need residential care, sometimes involuntarily.
But thanks to privatisation of certain residential care facilities, we witness precisely the abuse of a hundred years ago.
There are failures but nothing is perfect. I know quite a few people who now lead successful lives due to treatment but a century ago would have been locked up. That's not countering the ones who would have been locked up for "female hysteria."
Sometimes. Laws since the 1980s across the Western world have severely restricted support for the poor.
Yet it is nonetheless much better than it was a century ago.
If they have the time, and are not distracted.
You point being?
One hundred years ago you could plot a small sphere round where you are and stuff would carry on even if every man outside that sphere stopped working. Today your sphere is going to have to cover the world. The modern man is the very model of enabled impotence.
And because of that we can achieve what a man 100 years ago could only dream of.
You have a twisted and distorted view of history. Like many people who pine for the "good ol' days" you don't see why we moved away from them.
We work fewer hours than the average man 100 years back could imagine. Women are no longer slaves of the household thanks to devices that shave hours off of household tasks. Our standard of health would make a person from the early 1900s weep in joy, especially if they have a toothache. We live in much greater comfort and can travel around. The mentally ill aren't locked in dark asylums and the poor can even get government funding (rather than the historical option of starving to death or begging a rich person for help). The average person can learn more than they could ever before and practical access to education is less restricted than ever before.
The US has been a consumerist society for decades and decades. People have been saying it will ruin us all for just as long.
One thing you learn from reading old science fiction is that "modern" problems are anything but modern.
All those things were created in the 19 century. They became the infrastructure, upon which the 20th century could continue creating.
And most of those things are based on innovations from the 1700s.
You are confounding together unrelated things, innovation and economics growth as separate in many ways. The space shuttle was a brilliant piece of innovative engineering but utterly worthless to the economy.
A steam powered washing machine that no one uses is of little consequence. An inexpensive electric one that everyone can own is of great consequence.
You believe for some reason that small but numerous recessions and depressions are bad for the overall economy, and you are not alone in this mistaken belief.
You know what, I'll take the word of leading economists over soem random guy on slashdot.
In 19 century USA the value of dollar was growing, not falling, yet the economy of USA was also growing very quickly, as innovation and businesses was increasing, not falling.
Except it wasn't. Overall the economic growth as best I could find data for was, population growth adjusted, lower in the 1800s than in the 1900s. Not much lower (ie: 2% vs. 2.3%) but lower nonetheless. Surprised me as well but I can't find anything that say otherwise. I have read arguments that the lack of inflation (due to a limited money supply) constrained further growth.
Then there's all the recessions and depressions, as someone pointed out, there were a lot more frequent back then and covered more time.
This is a much smaller molecule than glucose, so it is only logical that glucose could be isolated (other sugars are not as important, since all vital sugars except glucose for some reason, can be synthesized).
Next time read even a wikipedia article before spouting wrong and worthless bullshit. It'll make everyone's life easier.
Pulse oximeters measure the relative ratio between hemoglobin that is bound to an oxygen molecule and hemoglobin that is not bound to an oxygen molecule. It doesn't measure the amount of hemoglobin much less the amount of oxygen. Measuring the actual amount of anything would require correcting perfectly for all other sources of absorption in real time which is likely near impossible.
Christ, you conspiracy nuts really are the dumbest life forms on this planet.
There is however a truth or close to one. If you implement all possible options in parallel universes then one will do better given however you weight better. This isn't philosophy, the aim of a debate on policy is to get as close to that best option as possible or to at least understand the pros/cons of various options.
In other words, it's science and not religion. Religion is people yelling at each other "I believe X because I believe it." Science is people yelling at each other "I believe X because this data says so." The later has practical value, the former does not (aside from entertainment).
Especially once you start making concrete statements "most people are X" or " most artists do it because of X" then you need to support them. Otherwise it's two people saying "it's X" and "no it's not X" back and forth for seventy posts. The "winner" is then the person who is more charismatic or stubborn. Not that their side isn't better by any rational or objective measure. That's Fox News or a pissing match, not an informed debate.
It's crucial one knows the difference and doesn't deceive themselves into thinking their views have actual meat behind them when they don't in fact. It's a dangerous trap to fall into mentally and we're all too irrationally human to avoid it most of the time.
I usually don't bother writing any of this however the person I replied to seemed like someone who might benefit and actually improve their knowledge of the issues.
Your counter-arguments boil down to "it's this way because I say so." You provide no studies, research or numbers to back up your claims. You make grand claims with nothing of substance to back them. Disjointed anecdotes and rhetoric. I've long ago learned not to trust anecdotes or random guesses at how many people are X.
Of course, my post was no better but then again I'm not writing two page posts or making that many grand claims.. Seriously, even online I generally expect people who are as into something as you to have something of substance.
No, it would take more than that. In fact, I'd say that the number one reform we need is to stop automatically granting copyrights; we need to require registrations and impose some strict formalities. A system of short overall terms comprised of even shorter initial and renewal terms would probably be number two, and a broad exception for non-commercial infringement by natural persons would probably be number three.
Congratulations, you're just killed 90% of open source software. And 90% of works created by individual artists and 90% of works put online by individuals.
Those are all entities who cannot afford to copyright all their works. It's simply not economically feasible especially if they create many small works. Nonetheless they benefit from having copyright protection as it prevents excessive outright copying.
Large corporations, who are the real source of problems, would simply pay the to them trivial fees for copyright and get on with their day. Trolls would probably also copyright the works of others, who didn't have the money to do it themselves, and then sue those who use them. That would be a fun lawsuit to see.
God, you're either insane or an idiot. Probably both.
Who actually kills more people in their chase for money, is it government or is it a private company?
This has anything with the question at hand, why exactly?
and private businesses, for the absence of government intervention at least are working on bringing something useful to the economy, while governments are by design destructive to it.
I'll quoting this for future reference.
If they do so and cause accidents that hurt people, they should be sued and there shouldn't be government guaranteed liability limit to how much you can sue a business owner or a manager, so there is the real problem of negligent companies: governments provide them with the incentive to be negligent via "limited liability" status granted to the corporations by governments.
Limited liability means nothing, life is not whatever insane libertarian utopia you think it is, companies will find every single way to get out of paying. Since they have more power than those suing them they are much better at doing it. Destroying evidence, intimidation, legal chaff, payed off experts and so on and so on.
Of course, you fail to realize that suing someone is dependent on a government. For both the underlying legal system, judicial system to arbitrate and enforcement of the judgment.
- and all that is needed is for people to actually own their property, rather than thinking that government owns it, so any piece of property needs an owner, who will care about what is happening on his property and be able to defend it in court.
If they can find out who did it ($$$), prove who did it ($$$) and then manage to sue them successfully ($$$). History has showed that companies are very good at getting out of such problems by use of superior money reserves. Landowners often sue corporations for damaging their land, they often lose. That is fact, your own insane view of reality is not.
As to the mandates not to dump oil and car batteries - actually this is about the private citizens, customers of the companies, it's really a mandate on the customers whether they can or cannot just dump oil all over the place.
You said companies are making recycling programs of their own volition. They are not. Laws are making them do that. Stop trying to weasel out of what you said by shifting the argument.
If somebody tries to dump their shit on your property, it's really between them and you, and has nothing to do with government.
So you mean you have to pick up a gun and attack the entity doing the dumping? After all, without the government that is your only alternative.
1. Government makes companies too big.
Prove it, history has showed that the natural state for corporation is to grow into giant monopolies. Without a government, the corporation will become governments.
2. When resources such as air are polluted, then it's more than grievance from just one other land owner, there is a class action lawsuit there, and again, there is no need for any government to stop a polluter, especially if there are no government props protecting the polluter via limited liability, etc.
Corporations will then either unanimously succeed in proving they are doing no harm, good luck proving otherwise without going bankrupt. The alternative is that all corporations will all be sued into oblivion and thus destroy the economy. The government provides a system that keeps either extreme from happening.
- why bother?
So you're saying that you're willfully ignorant? That you willfully ignore learning about the failures corporations and capitalism. I guess I wasted time writing my post. You don't care about the truth at all but about keeping your own pre-existing views intact. You're a zealot. You have belief and damn what the facts say. Sad to be you.
I mean Chernobyl was not a private operation, did you know that?
And Fukushima was. So was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Texas City Refinery explosion. Exxon Valdez oil spill. Three Mile Island accident. Bhopal disaster. Seveso disaster. Minamata disaster. Cuyahoga River fire. Your point?
You can quite seriously write pages and pages and pages on all the ways companies cut corners to save money. Then lied about it or covered it up. They generally only stopped once the government put it's fist down.
If businesses were not stopped from working on nuclear power, they could have the full cycle worked out, just like we do not throw away our car batteries or oil from cars under the bridge, this does not have to be a problem either.
We don't do those things because the government mandates it and enforces those laws. Companies are forced to do those things. They hardly do them of their own volition. Left on their own companies will in fact dump oil into rivers and chuck car batteries into the nearest landfill. They also won't care one bit what people do with their products afterward unless they can turn a profit on it. Go read a history book about what things were like before the 1960s.
private businesses dealt with nuclear materials plainly
Yes, quite plainly. Especially when not telling their employees they were licking radiative material.
Why can't everybody have one, exactly
Because no one would dispose of them safely. Go look up the GoiÃnia accident to see how much effort it takes to clean up even one badly handled piece of highly radioactive material.
History has plainly shown that companies and individuals are selfish pricks who will without a second thought let thousands die for their own profit and convenience.
Which you could probably do with any flashlight if you know how to do that.
While spending hours of time (which to me, unlike you apparently, is worth something) and probably more on parts than this flashlight costs.
I find people like you funny. You spend more on doing something "cheaply" than it'd have cost you to buy a proper product in the first place.
Go to a cheaper college, middle and bottom tier private schools are a rip-off. Cost the same as top schools but provide no financial aid. Basically, either find a cheaper public school or go to a top 10 private school (where financial aid is godly). Everything in between is a rip-off imho unless your parents are loaded (then who cares).
If you really care then get a masters afterward on your employer's dime at a better school.
Those top schools all give you a full scholarship if your parents make under $100k or some such number. Middle and bottom tier private schools are where the real problem lies. Better to just go to a public school instead.
So congratulations on failing to do your research.
But is it really necessary, if you're going to be a history expert or journalist or historian or programmer?
I'd very much prefer a history expert to have a broad knowledge of history and all it's sides rather than just what interests them.
The view that humans are somehow rational ubermensch is deeply flawed. We're all irrational emotional creatures that often don't even realize it. It's why advertising and conman and salespeople and charismatic assholes work so well. And that inherent irrationality seeps into every single aspect of our lives.
Learning on your own is likely to lead to a limited view of things because your mind isn't a perfectly rational creation hooked up to an oracle. You study what you want at that point in time. College forces you to study broadly and aspects that you may not have chosen otherwise. In the end that leaves you better and more knowledgeable.
google sells services to businesses. that's revenue.
Hahahahaha. The amount they make from that is such a pittance compared to ads it doesn't even matter.
They actually compared rates of a certain type of brain cancer between a group of heavy phone users and a group of non-users. The heavy users had double the rate of brain glioma compared to the non-users.
Correlation does not equal causation for a reason. Doing matched studies only fixes the problem in some ways and even then may introduce new problems.
No, but it's certainly a cause for concern and something to spend more time and effort looking into.
A lot of people have looked into it and so far only one study shows any real connection.
The thing is that studies aren't perfect sources of absolute truth, statistical significance only means that the results are unlikely to be pure chance not that they aren't. Do a hundred small studies of the same thing and a couple will say something different than the rest. And that's if no one made any mistakes which does happen more often than you'd expect.
Maybe if you're applying to be an engineer but not as a programmer or network administrator.
Hahahahaha. If you're applying to be a secretary they want a degree. If you're applying to be a mail sorter they want a degree. It's the new high school diploma. Have fun getting rejected from 99% of jobs because either HR or the manager or the co-workers want a degree.
They may not think you have what it takes for you to run a business but if you help out startups or even have your own that is successful, then you have some good references right there.
So you're saying that someone without a degree needs to work much harder and has fewer options (ie: only startups) than someone with one? So you disagree with me how exactly?
Degrees are meaningless for many fields, especially the arts.
They're very useful in the arts assuming you go to an actual art school. Many art jobs are at large companies, quite a boom and those like all such companies strongly hire those with degrees. More importantly art degrees provide actual tangible skills to students.
If you don't believe me then why don't you look at the giant list of successful people who have never gotten degree whether they dropped out or haven't attended.
And you ignore the 1000 other ones that have failed miserably and are barely making rent. I've met them. You haven't it seems. Go expand your field of acquaintances.
Many of those cases you mention would have succeeded no matter what they did because of the family connection and money they had.
If you know how to use your brain, you can get anywhere you want to.
Keep believing that if it makes you sleep better at night.
Nothing you said disagrees with me.
If not having a degree means that 99 out of a 100 employers don't consider you then you're not going to find a job just as easily. Nor will you find a job that pays as well. That one employer knows exactly how many fewer options you have than a candidate with a degree.
Life is not whatever fantasy world you want it to be. Your value for a company is exactly what they think your value is. No more and no less. A degree makes you more valuable in their eyes and that is all that matters.
There are plenty of reasons for that, psychological (they got degrees and thus consider them of value) to economical. None of them have anything to do with the skills you may gain from a degree.
Degrees in IT are useless.
Unless you actually want to get hired or promoted. You may get lucky or persevere but you won't do as well as someone else with a degree (who put in as much effort).
Please provide the quote of when they said there would be no quake before the quake?