Any law that can not be understood by someone without a law degree in 20 minutes should be null and void. Complicated laws are always wrong.
I hear this complaint a lot. I can certainly understand the frustration behind it. The problem is that the conclusion --"the law should always be simple!"-- is just plain wrong.
A lot of the basics of law are pretty straightforward. After all, you don't need a law degree to understand that killing, stealing, raping, arson, etc are against the law. The reason why law can get so complex is because the world is a complex place, humans are complex creatures, and it is apparently in our nature to continuously look for exceptions, workarounds, and other ways to hack the law for fun and profit. Take billions of us, hundreds of thousands of different types of organizations, interests, and activities, throw in the inevitability of entropy, and things naturally become very complex indeed.
You might as well complain that medicine, human history, or even the universe itself should be simpler.
I had been using one of these cards at a local big grocery for a few months after moving to a new place. It would regularly print out additional coupons with my receipt. The interesting thing to me was that I stopped getting any coupons immediately after I actually *used* one for a discount on a purchase.
Aside from temperatures and some curious issues with conductivity, the properties of liquid diamond are remarkably similar to the properties of liquid ice.
Few if any, I'd guess. Academic journals are usually not ad-based publications. The "open access" model described here means that either the author pays for the publication, the author's institution, or the publication has an institutional grant to pay for it.
When you follow the money, it leads you to two groups. At the bottom of the pole will be the individual scammers who've set up these "journals" -- the article mentions a few professors who were at best slipping and at worst cynically & intentionally running this simply for a profit. For the individually-published papers, it stops here.
For the rest, the money continues to a publishing company that cynically generates profits using a catalog that includes one, several, or only fake journals. These publishers include some big names in the traditional closed-access academic journal model (where subscriptions, often incredibly expensive ones, are required to read journal articles), such as LexisNexis owner Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and Sage.
On or about March 29, 2013, ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT, a/k/a "Dread Pirate Roberts," a/k/a "DPR," a/k/a "Silk Road," the defendant, in connection with operating the Silk Road website, solicited a Silk Road user to execute a murder-for-hire of another Silk Road user, who was threatening to release the identities of thousands of users of the site.
It's interesting that they're not charging him for the murder-for-hire scheme; the criminal complaint describes it in lurid detail. http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/UlbrichtCriminalComplaint.pdf (The detail starts at point #31/page 21.) Ulbricht allegedly tried to pay ~$150k to have a supposed blackmailer assassinated. He claims to have had an earlier "clean hit" done for around $80k.
Contrast the murder-for-hire move with the following (allegedly) hypocritical drivel from his LinkedIn profile:
I want to use economic theory as a means to abolish the use of coercion and agression amongst mankind. Just as slavery has been abolished most everywhere, I believe violence, coercion and all forms of force by one person over another can come to an end. The most widespread and systemic use of force is amongst institutions and governments, so this is my current point of effort. The best way to change a government is to change the minds of the governed, however. To that end, I am creating an economic simulation to give people a first-hand experience of what it would be like to live in a world without the systemic use of force.
As little as a case of insider trading would surprise me here --and the possibility really needs to be investigated-- there is a non-cheating explanation.
Apparently, guessing *against* commonly expected outcomes, such as the Fed's move on the interest rate here, can often be a position that is relatively low-risk and high-reward. If common expectation had been correct, the trades will result in a loss, certainly, and this has to be mitigated. But if the counterintuitive position is correct, and your position is the first one to be right, you can win very, very big.
Insider trading is undoubtedly possible. However, I find it suspect that a person with both the inside knowledge and access to both the information AND HFT would also overlook such a fundamental tell off an otherwise very well-planned and executed fraud.
...of this stunt is how traceable it really has to be. (Taking the assumption that this was an act of sabotage as a given, that is.) I mean I'm sure the phantom authors were thorough enough to cover direct digital tracks, but the list of likely suspects here is going to be really, really small. I find it chilling that people accomplished enough to either develop this research OR steal the information from a competitor would be foolish enough to overlook the simple fact that they can't really easily, anonymously slip into a crowd when that crowd is so tiny to begin with.
The alternate explanations posited or that I could otherwise imagine certainly do seem to be comparatively bizarre and unlikely. The idea that a motive might have been to steal research/publication/academic thunder from interesting results to be a perfectly credible one, really. Current academic and journal models do indeed, perversely, tend to encourage self-interested behavior over behavior beneficial to the rest of humanity. It might be simply an inescapable consequence of the natural links between profit, power, research, and human nature.
Assuming the cop is correct --cops have been known to get the law wrong before-- the law prohibiting GPS apps on smartphones, while well-intended, is poorly designed. The use of phone GPS apps should be permitted, as long as they are attached to a hands-free device -- clipped/strapped/velcroed onto your dash, basically. Some other states already have this on the books.
Manhandling a phone, even for a GPS app, while driving is indeed dangerous in that both your hands and eyes are distracted. But a hands free navigation apps do not present these particular dangers.
Please explain where you get that puritans are ok with violence...
I see your point about the tone of the comment, but it seems fair to say that the bible is both a central piece of puritan literature and a work that contains numerous depictions of violence. Then there's the fact that the *second* Thanksgiving feast was less crowded than the first because those particular puritans did a lot of killing.
It's not really that difficult to find examples of community-sanctioned violence in puritan culture: execution was the penalty for a lot more crimes than is the case today, corporal punishment was encouraged, witchcraft persecutions, torture, and execution ("pressed to death by stones" was an accepted form of death for male witches, I believe), etc.
I imagine there were some people who rejected the terrible production of the early Louis Armstrong recordings, too.
Fedora + PlanetCCRMA = audio production OS
on
Fedora Project Turns 10
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Installing the PlanetCCRMA http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ collection of packages on Fedora has been my preferred open source audio production installation for quite some time. There isn't really all that much in the way of audio production distros, I guess because a real-time kernel is necessary for audio multitracking, which presents a lot of problem for most other use cases.
This has been one area where Fedora has consistently stood out among its peers. For a short time, Ubuntu Studio was almost the perfect fit for this niche, but the complete incorporation of an early, incomplete, and buggy PulseAudio killed that chance.
I think that dates to around Fedora 7 or 8. Since then, I have yet to come across a cleaner & more efficient combination for Linux based multitrack audio production.
Great question. I'm not talking about a URL shortener than anyone can use and so could take you to blue waffles, goatse, or lemon party. The shortened links would be to a.gov domain, would originate from judges' chambers, and go through multiple levels of editing and review, including being approved by the Reporter of Decisions before publication.
For fuck's sake, this is one reason why PURLs exist. The trainwreck that is a constant string of dynamic URLs *printed* out in court opinions is an example of shameful institutional incompetence, regardless of whether it's willful ignorance or just plain ignorance.
What is required to address this is an official government domain that hosts static screencaptures of web pages, provides PURLs to point to them, and ideally uses a URL-shortening function like goo.go or bit.ly.
Then, instead of including a long, difficult-to-retype URL in the opinion, the short, easy-to-type PURL appears in the opinion. The supplemental info for the citation includes things like original URL and date accessed, and the given PURL will point to the material in question.
Opposed to this idea will be copyright owners who fear that court opinions will eliminate their revenues by providing free access to material they usually charge for. Because this kind of opposition is easy to use to score political points (big government! wasting taxpayer dollars!! eminent domain of the little guy's copyrighted material!!!), to make money, getting to this obvious solution will be long delayed. When it is ultimately decided upon, it will be thousands of times more expensive than need be, take three times as long to roll out, will be created using shoddy technology that will break very quickly, and be used as yet another example of government failure.
$200 is simply too far out of range of the $35/$50 Pi for it to be considered a competitor.
Datedness and relative power of components aside, the open hardware platform aspect is a good selling point. Hopefully this lends an economy of scale to the product that ultimately gets it into the same ballpark.
Judges back then were chosen based on merits. Judges today are chosen based on who they know.
Please remove the rose-colored glasses you're using to view history.
Do you really believe that US judicial appointments in the 19th century were more merit-based than they are today? Let's take a closer look.
From when this case was decided in 1858, it would be: several decades before the first woman was admitted to an established law school, more decades before the first law school ((Brooklyn Law School, FYI) to accept candidates regardless of gender, ethnicity, or religion . (Yale, Harvard, and all the other biggies would drop their gender, ethnic, and religious admissions criteria several decades after BLS), being openly atheist or homosexual was often illegal,
It is difficult to call appointments "merit based" when selection criteria systematically eliminated people because of gender, ethnicity, religion, orientation, level of wealth, ownership status... and of course the reputation and standing of your family name.
My second was that Steve Albini certainly wouldn't be ignorant to these issues. Rather, he probably has a New Jersey warehouse or two of blank tape and unused tape machines that he bought up as manufacturers have dropped off, and is setting himself up for a stable, long term niche market of people who need either tape and/or tape machines.
Would it shock to know that all of that information is readily available to just about any business owner or attorney for $50 or less and nothing more than a promise (by them to the data broker) that you said that you wanted to do business with them or are a client of theirs?
You are seriously underestimating the price of paying retail for LexisNexis. A single search on an exclusive database can easily run triple that amount or more -- even if the search returns no results.
I believe the judge is supposed to be a biased advocate for the defense.
That's an interesting belief, but it's certainly not a judge's role in the US to be an advocate for any party before it. Counsel are the advocates, and the judge plays referee. It's not a judge's role to make either advocate's more or less difficult.
You might agree with it, you might not. But the idea is basically that vigorous advocacy in a purportedly impartial venue will result in the greatest amount of justice. Removing a judge's partiality and replacing it with intentional bias, as you suggest, would entirely reengineer one branch of government.
Furthermore, how can a system where the "I'm gonna get as much as I can (regardless of my needs) and give as little as possible" mentality is the norm be considered moral?
While that is certainly not moral in an individual sense, it does make sense to eliminate addressing moral concerns in systemic analyses -- specifically when an organization is formed and operating with the explicit purpose to generate profit.
Throwing morality into the mix at that scale can impede efficient group operation, and it doesn't preclude contributing back to one's community via individual choices and efforts. While I personally tend to favor ideas that increase tax revenue, the idea that "tax money is used to benefit society" isn't quite accurate.
Tax money can be wasted, abused for limited personal gain, used to fund violent and coercive actions you might personally disagree with (like foreign wars and domestic marijuana prohibition). Some believe the waste (violence, corruption) outweighs the social benefits (like infrastructure, emergency response, and medical care.) Regardless, my point is that your assumption that "taxes benefit society" is not by any means a given.
Chances are your local library has a subscription to it, and you can access it from your library's online resources portal with your library card # and password, all for the cost of getting a library account set up.
Last time I checked the purchase price, a single copy of the full-text print version of the 2d edition (about twenty volumes) sold for around $11k, I believe. It might have been $18k, it has been a while. I've seen used copies of the two-volume, small print OED (requires a magnifying glass to read, but is complete) for around $100-$150. I believe its cost is justified by the nature of the beast -- it aims to be a comprehensive dictionary, a work that encompasses every word of the English language.
If you believe that women have a right to be in the workplace, then I think you should believe that they have a right to feel as safe and respected as we do...
This is the only part I disagree with. I don't believe people have a "right to feel" anything. Had you said "they have a right to BE as safe and respected as we are" I'd be with you 100%.
And maybe that's part of the problem. A lot of human interaction, in the workplace, involves disrespect. Happens between men, happens between women. Even non-sexual disrespect between men and women can occur. But people respond differently to scenarios: what can make one person feel uncomfortable can make another feel amused and yet another feel nothing in particular at all. We can and should shape our behavior when working and interacting in groups, but using the feelings of others as our guide seems like a very poor way of going about it. Rather, developing explicit, fair standards of behavior seems to me the better way to go.
For example: do not commit violence, and do not intentionally disrespect others. If such an environment can be created --and I believe it can-- however one person might feel in an environment where they actually are safe and respected is a personal matter of their own. Claims of wrongful behavior can be reviewed using these more objective guidelines --was it violent? Was it disrespectful?-- rather than bothering with the necessarily subjective moving target of how it made someone else feel.
...if you choose school, that is. This approach finally occurred to me after I'd received my Master's and worked for a few years. I made the mistake of waiting to think about finding a job until after graduation. I did not make the same mistake when I went back for a postgrad degree. I started looking at job postings long before I started filling out school applications. This helped me determine the appropriate program and qualifications necessary for where I wanted to be. I did not stop until I'd landed a position. (Actually, I still review job postings. It's a good habit.)
If you treat your education as a years-long job search, your class selection and study habits, and extracurriculars will fall into place naturally. School debt/expese/etc is real and needs to be considered, but schools to give you access to job opportunities that you can't find elsewhere. You'll understand that your ultimate goal isn't grades, it's the job you will need to create the lifestyle that you want. And this perspective will help you make the grades needed to get there. It will also help you get cracking on everything else you'll need to get there: resume, work examples, interview practices, networking, publications (if needed), business plans (if needed), technical skills, relevant experience, industry awareness, etc.
Find out about your prospective school's career office, and determine if they are effective. Meet with a career counselor as soon as you begin. Review every aspect of your job search. Internships are the answer to the no-work-without-no-work-experience paradox. Student organization activity should be designed around those that will give you access to well-placed professionals in your field of interest. Every job and internship application should include a revision of your resume and a new cover letter -- no mass-mailing.
It also appears that this quote, reflected in the thread title, is inaccurate:
By shifting its costs to ISPs, Netflix is distributing the costs of delivering its service across all Internet consumers.
Even if the article analysis is correct, the costs would be passed not to *all* Internet consumers, but rather only those who use an ISP that has decided to peer with Netflix.
Slashdot Mirror
Any law that can not be understood by someone without a law degree in 20 minutes should be null and void. Complicated laws are always wrong.
I hear this complaint a lot. I can certainly understand the frustration behind it. The problem is that the conclusion --"the law should always be simple!"-- is just plain wrong.
A lot of the basics of law are pretty straightforward. After all, you don't need a law degree to understand that killing, stealing, raping, arson, etc are against the law. The reason why law can get so complex is because the world is a complex place, humans are complex creatures, and it is apparently in our nature to continuously look for exceptions, workarounds, and other ways to hack the law for fun and profit. Take billions of us, hundreds of thousands of different types of organizations, interests, and activities, throw in the inevitability of entropy, and things naturally become very complex indeed.
You might as well complain that medicine, human history, or even the universe itself should be simpler.
I had been using one of these cards at a local big grocery for a few months after moving to a new place. It would regularly print out additional coupons with my receipt. The interesting thing to me was that I stopped getting any coupons immediately after I actually *used* one for a discount on a purchase.
Aside from temperatures and some curious issues with conductivity, the properties of liquid diamond are remarkably similar to the properties of liquid ice.
Few if any, I'd guess. Academic journals are usually not ad-based publications. The "open access" model described here means that either the author pays for the publication, the author's institution, or the publication has an institutional grant to pay for it.
When you follow the money, it leads you to two groups. At the bottom of the pole will be the individual scammers who've set up these "journals" -- the article mentions a few professors who were at best slipping and at worst cynically & intentionally running this simply for a profit. For the individually-published papers, it stops here.
For the rest, the money continues to a publishing company that cynically generates profits using a catalog that includes one, several, or only fake journals. These publishers include some big names in the traditional closed-access academic journal model (where subscriptions, often incredibly expensive ones, are required to read journal articles), such as LexisNexis owner Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and Sage.
On or about March 29, 2013, ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT, a/k/a "Dread Pirate Roberts," a/k/a "DPR," a/k/a "Silk Road," the defendant, in connection with operating the Silk Road website, solicited a Silk Road user to execute a murder-for-hire of another Silk Road user, who was threatening to release the identities of thousands of users of the site.
It's interesting that they're not charging him for the murder-for-hire scheme; the criminal complaint describes it in lurid detail. http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/UlbrichtCriminalComplaint.pdf (The detail starts at point #31/page 21.) Ulbricht allegedly tried to pay ~$150k to have a supposed blackmailer assassinated. He claims to have had an earlier "clean hit" done for around $80k.
Contrast the murder-for-hire move with the following (allegedly) hypocritical drivel from his LinkedIn profile:
I want to use economic theory as a means to abolish the use of coercion and agression amongst mankind. Just as slavery has been abolished most everywhere, I believe violence, coercion and all forms of force by one person over another can come to an end. The most widespread and systemic use of force is amongst institutions and governments, so this is my current point of effort. The best way to change a government is to change the minds of the governed, however. To that end, I am creating an economic simulation to give people a first-hand experience of what it would be like to live in a world without the systemic use of force.
As little as a case of insider trading would surprise me here --and the possibility really needs to be investigated-- there is a non-cheating explanation.
Apparently, guessing *against* commonly expected outcomes, such as the Fed's move on the interest rate here, can often be a position that is relatively low-risk and high-reward. If common expectation had been correct, the trades will result in a loss, certainly, and this has to be mitigated. But if the counterintuitive position is correct, and your position is the first one to be right, you can win very, very big.
Insider trading is undoubtedly possible. However, I find it suspect that a person with both the inside knowledge and access to both the information AND HFT would also overlook such a fundamental tell off an otherwise very well-planned and executed fraud.
...of this stunt is how traceable it really has to be. (Taking the assumption that this was an act of sabotage as a given, that is.) I mean I'm sure the phantom authors were thorough enough to cover direct digital tracks, but the list of likely suspects here is going to be really, really small. I find it chilling that people accomplished enough to either develop this research OR steal the information from a competitor would be foolish enough to overlook the simple fact that they can't really easily, anonymously slip into a crowd when that crowd is so tiny to begin with.
The alternate explanations posited or that I could otherwise imagine certainly do seem to be comparatively bizarre and unlikely. The idea that a motive might have been to steal research/publication/academic thunder from interesting results to be a perfectly credible one, really. Current academic and journal models do indeed, perversely, tend to encourage self-interested behavior over behavior beneficial to the rest of humanity. It might be simply an inescapable consequence of the natural links between profit, power, research, and human nature.
Give him a break: he wrote that while waiting for the light to turn green.
Assuming the cop is correct --cops have been known to get the law wrong before-- the law prohibiting GPS apps on smartphones, while well-intended, is poorly designed. The use of phone GPS apps should be permitted, as long as they are attached to a hands-free device -- clipped/strapped/velcroed onto your dash, basically. Some other states already have this on the books.
Manhandling a phone, even for a GPS app, while driving is indeed dangerous in that both your hands and eyes are distracted. But a hands free navigation apps do not present these particular dangers.
Please explain where you get that puritans are ok with violence...
I see your point about the tone of the comment, but it seems fair to say that the bible is both a central piece of puritan literature and a work that contains numerous depictions of violence. Then there's the fact that the *second* Thanksgiving feast was less crowded than the first because those particular puritans did a lot of killing.
It's not really that difficult to find examples of community-sanctioned violence in puritan culture: execution was the penalty for a lot more crimes than is the case today, corporal punishment was encouraged, witchcraft persecutions, torture, and execution ("pressed to death by stones" was an accepted form of death for male witches, I believe), etc.
I imagine there were some people who rejected the terrible production of the early Louis Armstrong recordings, too.
Installing the PlanetCCRMA http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ collection of packages on Fedora has been my preferred open source audio production installation for quite some time. There isn't really all that much in the way of audio production distros, I guess because a real-time kernel is necessary for audio multitracking, which presents a lot of problem for most other use cases.
This has been one area where Fedora has consistently stood out among its peers. For a short time, Ubuntu Studio was almost the perfect fit for this niche, but the complete incorporation of an early, incomplete, and buggy PulseAudio killed that chance.
I think that dates to around Fedora 7 or 8. Since then, I have yet to come across a cleaner & more efficient combination for Linux based multitrack audio production.
I am aware that .ly indicates Libya, etc. Given that this is slashdot, I would have thought this knowledge would be accepted as commonly understood.
.gov and be hosted in the states.
I didn't think it needed explanation here, but yes you are indeed correct: obviously this model would have to end in
Great question. I'm not talking about a URL shortener than anyone can use and so could take you to blue waffles, goatse, or lemon party. The shortened links would be to a .gov domain, would originate from judges' chambers, and go through multiple levels of editing and review, including being approved by the Reporter of Decisions before publication.
For fuck's sake, this is one reason why PURLs exist. The trainwreck that is a constant string of dynamic URLs *printed* out in court opinions is an example of shameful institutional incompetence, regardless of whether it's willful ignorance or just plain ignorance.
What is required to address this is an official government domain that hosts static screencaptures of web pages, provides PURLs to point to them, and ideally uses a URL-shortening function like goo.go or bit.ly.
Then, instead of including a long, difficult-to-retype URL in the opinion, the short, easy-to-type PURL appears in the opinion. The supplemental info for the citation includes things like original URL and date accessed, and the given PURL will point to the material in question.
Opposed to this idea will be copyright owners who fear that court opinions will eliminate their revenues by providing free access to material they usually charge for. Because this kind of opposition is easy to use to score political points (big government! wasting taxpayer dollars!! eminent domain of the little guy's copyrighted material!!!), to make money, getting to this obvious solution will be long delayed. When it is ultimately decided upon, it will be thousands of times more expensive than need be, take three times as long to roll out, will be created using shoddy technology that will break very quickly, and be used as yet another example of government failure.
$200 is simply too far out of range of the $35/$50 Pi for it to be considered a competitor.
Datedness and relative power of components aside, the open hardware platform aspect is a good selling point. Hopefully this lends an economy of scale to the product that ultimately gets it into the same ballpark.
Judges back then were chosen based on merits. Judges today are chosen based on who they know.
Please remove the rose-colored glasses you're using to view history.
Do you really believe that US judicial appointments in the 19th century were more merit-based than they are today? Let's take a closer look.
From when this case was decided in 1858, it would be: several decades before the first woman was admitted to an established law school, more decades before the first law school ((Brooklyn Law School, FYI) to accept candidates regardless of gender, ethnicity, or religion . (Yale, Harvard, and all the other biggies would drop their gender, ethnic, and religious admissions criteria several decades after BLS), being openly atheist or homosexual was often illegal,
It is difficult to call appointments "merit based" when selection criteria systematically eliminated people because of gender, ethnicity, religion, orientation, level of wealth, ownership status... and of course the reputation and standing of your family name.
That was my first thought.
My second was that Steve Albini certainly wouldn't be ignorant to these issues. Rather, he probably has a New Jersey warehouse or two of blank tape and unused tape machines that he bought up as manufacturers have dropped off, and is setting himself up for a stable, long term niche market of people who need either tape and/or tape machines.
Would it shock to know that all of that information is readily available to just about any business owner or attorney for $50 or less and nothing more than a promise (by them to the data broker) that you said that you wanted to do business with them or are a client of theirs?
You are seriously underestimating the price of paying retail for LexisNexis. A single search on an exclusive database can easily run triple that amount or more -- even if the search returns no results.
I believe the judge is supposed to be a biased advocate for the defense.
That's an interesting belief, but it's certainly not a judge's role in the US to be an advocate for any party before it. Counsel are the advocates, and the judge plays referee. It's not a judge's role to make either advocate's more or less difficult.
You might agree with it, you might not. But the idea is basically that vigorous advocacy in a purportedly impartial venue will result in the greatest amount of justice. Removing a judge's partiality and replacing it with intentional bias, as you suggest, would entirely reengineer one branch of government.
Furthermore, how can a system where the "I'm gonna get as much as I can (regardless of my needs) and give as little as possible" mentality is the norm be considered moral?
While that is certainly not moral in an individual sense, it does make sense to eliminate addressing moral concerns in systemic analyses -- specifically when an organization is formed and operating with the explicit purpose to generate profit.
Throwing morality into the mix at that scale can impede efficient group operation, and it doesn't preclude contributing back to one's community via individual choices and efforts. While I personally tend to favor ideas that increase tax revenue, the idea that "tax money is used to benefit society" isn't quite accurate.
Tax money can be wasted, abused for limited personal gain, used to fund violent and coercive actions you might personally disagree with (like foreign wars and domestic marijuana prohibition). Some believe the waste (violence, corruption) outweighs the social benefits (like infrastructure, emergency response, and medical care.) Regardless, my point is that your assumption that "taxes benefit society" is not by any means a given.
Chances are your local library has a subscription to it, and you can access it from your library's online resources portal with your library card # and password, all for the cost of getting a library account set up.
Last time I checked the purchase price, a single copy of the full-text print version of the 2d edition (about twenty volumes) sold for around $11k, I believe. It might have been $18k, it has been a while. I've seen used copies of the two-volume, small print OED (requires a magnifying glass to read, but is complete) for around $100-$150. I believe its cost is justified by the nature of the beast -- it aims to be a comprehensive dictionary, a work that encompasses every word of the English language.
If you believe that women have a right to be in the workplace, then I think you should believe that they have a right to feel as safe and respected as we do...
This is the only part I disagree with. I don't believe people have a "right to feel" anything. Had you said "they have a right to BE as safe and respected as we are" I'd be with you 100%.
And maybe that's part of the problem. A lot of human interaction, in the workplace, involves disrespect. Happens between men, happens between women. Even non-sexual disrespect between men and women can occur. But people respond differently to scenarios: what can make one person feel uncomfortable can make another feel amused and yet another feel nothing in particular at all. We can and should shape our behavior when working and interacting in groups, but using the feelings of others as our guide seems like a very poor way of going about it. Rather, developing explicit, fair standards of behavior seems to me the better way to go.
For example: do not commit violence, and do not intentionally disrespect others. If such an environment can be created --and I believe it can-- however one person might feel in an environment where they actually are safe and respected is a personal matter of their own. Claims of wrongful behavior can be reviewed using these more objective guidelines --was it violent? Was it disrespectful?-- rather than bothering with the necessarily subjective moving target of how it made someone else feel.
...if you choose school, that is. This approach finally occurred to me after I'd received my Master's and worked for a few years. I made the mistake of waiting to think about finding a job until after graduation. I did not make the same mistake when I went back for a postgrad degree. I started looking at job postings long before I started filling out school applications. This helped me determine the appropriate program and qualifications necessary for where I wanted to be. I did not stop until I'd landed a position. (Actually, I still review job postings. It's a good habit.)
If you treat your education as a years-long job search, your class selection and study habits, and extracurriculars will fall into place naturally. School debt/expese/etc is real and needs to be considered, but schools to give you access to job opportunities that you can't find elsewhere. You'll understand that your ultimate goal isn't grades, it's the job you will need to create the lifestyle that you want. And this perspective will help you make the grades needed to get there. It will also help you get cracking on everything else you'll need to get there: resume, work examples, interview practices, networking, publications (if needed), business plans (if needed), technical skills, relevant experience, industry awareness, etc.
Find out about your prospective school's career office, and determine if they are effective. Meet with a career counselor as soon as you begin. Review every aspect of your job search. Internships are the answer to the no-work-without-no-work-experience paradox. Student organization activity should be designed around those that will give you access to well-placed professionals in your field of interest. Every job and internship application should include a revision of your resume and a new cover letter -- no mass-mailing.
By shifting its costs to ISPs, Netflix is distributing the costs of delivering its service across all Internet consumers.
Even if the article analysis is correct, the costs would be passed not to *all* Internet consumers, but rather only those who use an ISP that has decided to peer with Netflix.