I forgot. Manager's where invented to give hell to the "little guy." I don't know what you have against managers, but it's obviously very personal.
And how does not learning new skills help people do more constructive things?
A degree is supposed to be for two things:
1) It teaches you the basics of whatever career you want to be in
2) It shows your employer that you made a sacrifice to try to better yourself. Be it money, time, energy, etc. It shows commitment.
A degree is not meant to teach you everything you'll ever know about your career for the rest of your life.
Interesting how easy it is to declare something "useless" with certainty.
Very easy. Example: I have 30 years experience hunting bears. Not applicable for a net admin job. AKA: Useless.
Who will stand up for the "little guy"? He's so victimized.
I think the "little guy" needs to get over his "little guy" complex. If he wants to not be so little (and bitter, I might add), then he should stand up and do something about it. If he needs to go back to school, so be it. If he needs to get two jobs, so be it.
Don't give me your sob story that why should the poor little guy be so oppressed, be paid chicken feed, and have to get two jobs when his manager is making ten times more for sitting on his ass. If you wanna be someone or something, go be it. If you think you'd be a better manager than yours, then, become the manager. You don't want to become a manager because you will lose your intelligence or integrity or whatever it is the "little guy" keeps crying about? Then, stay where you are so you can keep complaing about how unfair and hard life is for the you.
It's the "little guys" that keep the asshole managers where they are.
Profit was the reason they fired them. So, there is a reason. You may not like it, but it's still a valid reason.
It's not the goal of a career to remain competitive but it may be necessary if you plan on a long term career. You can't just expect to go to school, get a job, and plan to advance in your career with nothing but your experience and seniority.
You can have all the experience in the world, but if it's experience on something obsolete or not applicable, it's useless.
To summarize my point: Keep learning new skills and never become obsolete.
You're right, companies fire people just because they feel like it. They love having to find new prospects, interview them, and retrain them. It's all in the name of fun.
Competitive means to be able to be able to be able to have a fair shot at a raise or promotion. It means to have a good chance of not being laid off during a resize or merger. It means that you can still compete with the new guys. The guys that know all the new gadgets and skills.
If you want to remain valuable to your company, you may have to do more than just show up and do a good job. You may have to expand your knowledge and skills to stay competitive.
Sometimes, however, it's simply the luck of the draw. I can't blame companies for wanting to hire cheaper labor. Of course, I hope they're not sacrificiing quality for profit (which I know is the case many times.)
The reason people at check-out counters do not, generally, get paid that much is because the companies they work for know that if he doesn't want to work for whatever amount of money they're paying him, they can just hire someone else who will. It is much harder, however, to replace someone whose skills are very rare because it takes money or time to acquire them and therefore, companies will pay more money to keep them there for longer. Whether $15/hour is "chickenshit," is irrelevant. It's all about supply and demand. It's up to each individual to make themselves valuable.
Whether we like it or not, with the increase of technology, people HAVE TO become proficient at more advanced jobs that may require more training. Inevitably, most cashiers, trash collectors, and road builders will be phased out and we will have the newer generations working on other tasks higher up in the chain.
A good example is the farming industry. Back in the good ol' days, more than 60% of the American population was farming just to eat, let alone to sell. Today, less than 3% of the US population farms and they feed this nation and have more than enough to sell worldwide. Of course, this is not the case 100% of the time, sometimes crops die, economies burst, etc. However, the trend remains that the less-skilled jobs are minimized as technology grows.
Remember that we create technology to do the work we don't like for us. I'm sure most people at check-out counters would rather be doing something else with their time; even if it is working somewhere else.
If all these people with $8000 in debt are like me, then, they have that debt because of bad financial planning and management and not because of lack of real wage growth.
My point with the house example was to show that if a new generation of artists is born knowing that they won't be paid directly for their work, they won't miss it because they won't know the difference.
Just because something has always been done a certain way, doesn't mean that's the only right way or the way it should always be done. Downloading music is not stealing. I didn't take money from them. I didn't take any physical property. IP is not property. If it is, then let's REALLY treat it like property. When I buy a couch, the furniture store doesn't tell me under what circumstances I can resell it, that I can't use it use it for commercial purposes, that I can't show it in public, it doesn't tell me I can't alter it, it doesn't tell me I can't give it away or make copies of it. It doesn't tell me that they can take my couch away any time they feel I've violated their rules. No, I can do whatever the hell I want with it because it is MY damn couch. I can't post pics of it on the net. I can divulge to anyone what it's made of and how it's built. I can alter it and resell it as an original piece of art to my credit. IP is the only kind of "property" where the maker or distributor can tell you how to use it and can take it away from you, at any time for any reason.
Copyright was a good idea at the time. It's dated and too damn powerful. It will die out, in time. And yes, laws can and have been that fluid throughout time. They will keep on changing and you can't force a nation or the world to abide by rules that less than.01% of the population believes in.
The difference is that a single painter cannot pressure retailers into setting the prices he wants, he cannot saturate the media with his paintings, he cannot tell radio stations which songs to play, he cannot lobby in our government to create and pass laws the way the big companies can, he will most likely not be asked to pose drinking Coke for a commercial, etc, etc...
Twisted, I never said that all information should necessarily be free. I said all information will be free. Not because I think it it's pretty nifty how I don't pay anything, but because millions and millions of people will think it's pretty nifty how they don't have to pay anything.
Now, just because an artist won't be able to charge for every single time someone listen to his song, doesn't mean he won't be sponsored or making money in any way. Trust me. People will find a way to make money in any way possible.
Here's a quick example, by the way.
The Sims Resource is a website with thousands upon thousands of different custom made objects for The Sims and The Sims 2. You can get 99% of all those objects for free on the internet, but instead, thousands(maybe more) of people have subscribed to this system because it's fast, convenient, easy to use, gives them the results they need. So, there will always be people that find niches in the economy and will profit from it. Once the music distro/publishing companies are gone, something else will take up the niche. What? I don't know.
Well... If you've grown up knowing that you won't get paid, why would you complain? It's like all of the sudden I start thinking, "Why don't I get paid every time someone looks at my house? After all, I designed and built it."
Now, the way you're presenting your argument, it sounds like you're assuming that all artists will inherently and naturally want to get paid for what they do.
And you misinterpreted my comment. I am IN FAVOR of free information. (as in free lunch and free speech.)
I don't understand why people don't realize that morals, ethics, and subsequently, laws, are fluid. They'll change with technology, culture, communications, etc. I think people will come to the realization, after a long while, that sharing music is not like stealing, at all. That intellectual property is not property, at all.
There's many obstacles and barriers, but, eventually, ethics and laws will give in to sheer social pressure.
There will come a point where anyone trying to enforce an anti-piracy law will seem as silly and outdated as someone getting a ticket for lending your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neightbor in Denver.
Oh, I know. It was more of a rhetorical question.
I think besides concerts, marketing products such as t-shirts, cups, jackets, posters, autographed stuff, and all that will be a musicians main source of income in a few years.
It's a matter of taste. If I'm looking to buy something and that's it, I'll just order online. If I'm looking for some human interaction, then I'll go out with my friends, family, girlfriend, etc.
If I wanna know about a song, I can always ask call the store, anyway.
Obviously, everyone likes to get things free.
It's obvious that if given the choice between paying $0 and paying ANY amount over that, people will choose $0 more likely than not.
I think it's time everyone woke up, including content creators such as musicians and movie makers, and took a long and realistic look at the way information is shared, today. They will realize that people sharing their intellectual "property" for free is truly inevitable.
All the efforts and money put into tracking pirates and creating new protection schemes, should be used into figuring out a way to still be able to sell people something they cannot get online. Sharing information will not stop. I think the question of whether it is immoral, illegal, or unethical is moot at this point. It will not be stopped and if you look closely, the new generations have even less and less inhibitions when it comes to "piracy".
Now, I wonder this:
How will an artist born in a generation where he knows all his works can be traded for free, at any time, feel about it? Right now, most artists and publishers are complaining because they have seen the golden days, but what about the new kind of artist that is born knowing that he will most likely not be compensated monetarily for simply making a song?
You're right I did squared instead of cubed, but like I said in another reply, the volume of the smaller asteroids, if there are, in fact, 1000 would be the volume of the asteroid divided by 1000. In other words,.027sq (3x3x3/1000) miles per smaller asteroid.
You're right. I did do squared, instead of cubed. It should be 3*3*3=27. I have no idea how you got 54, but OK. It should've been 27sq miles. But the same principle applies. Divide 27sq miles and you get.027 sq miles per asteroid.
hmmmk... Let's say the asteroid is 3miles in length per side. It'd be 9 sq. miles, then. Divide 9sq. miles by 1000. and you get a 1000 asteroids of.009 sq miles each. You're right. This is 6th grade math. I don't see why you didn't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot. Manager's where invented to give hell to the "little guy." I don't know what you have against managers, but it's obviously very personal.
And how does not learning new skills help people do more constructive things?
A degree is supposed to be for two things:
1) It teaches you the basics of whatever career you want to be in
2) It shows your employer that you made a sacrifice to try to better yourself. Be it money, time, energy, etc. It shows commitment.
A degree is not meant to teach you everything you'll ever know about your career for the rest of your life.
Interesting how easy it is to declare something "useless" with certainty.
Very easy. Example: I have 30 years experience hunting bears. Not applicable for a net admin job. AKA: Useless.
Who will stand up for the "little guy"? He's so victimized.
I think the "little guy" needs to get over his "little guy" complex. If he wants to not be so little (and bitter, I might add), then he should stand up and do something about it. If he needs to go back to school, so be it. If he needs to get two jobs, so be it.
Don't give me your sob story that why should the poor little guy be so oppressed, be paid chicken feed, and have to get two jobs when his manager is making ten times more for sitting on his ass. If you wanna be someone or something, go be it. If you think you'd be a better manager than yours, then, become the manager. You don't want to become a manager because you will lose your intelligence or integrity or whatever it is the "little guy" keeps crying about? Then, stay where you are so you can keep complaing about how unfair and hard life is for the you.
It's the "little guys" that keep the asshole managers where they are.
As they say... "Shit rolls downhill."
Just make sure you're not at the bottom or move out of the way, then.
Profit was the reason they fired them. So, there is a reason. You may not like it, but it's still a valid reason.
It's not the goal of a career to remain competitive but it may be necessary if you plan on a long term career. You can't just expect to go to school, get a job, and plan to advance in your career with nothing but your experience and seniority.
You can have all the experience in the world, but if it's experience on something obsolete or not applicable, it's useless.
To summarize my point: Keep learning new skills and never become obsolete.
You're right, companies fire people just because they feel like it. They love having to find new prospects, interview them, and retrain them. It's all in the name of fun.
Competitive means to be able to be able to be able to have a fair shot at a raise or promotion. It means to have a good chance of not being laid off during a resize or merger. It means that you can still compete with the new guys. The guys that know all the new gadgets and skills.
If you want to remain valuable to your company, you may have to do more than just show up and do a good job. You may have to expand your knowledge and skills to stay competitive.
Sometimes, however, it's simply the luck of the draw. I can't blame companies for wanting to hire cheaper labor. Of course, I hope they're not sacrificiing quality for profit (which I know is the case many times.)
The reason people at check-out counters do not, generally, get paid that much is because the companies they work for know that if he doesn't want to work for whatever amount of money they're paying him, they can just hire someone else who will. It is much harder, however, to replace someone whose skills are very rare because it takes money or time to acquire them and therefore, companies will pay more money to keep them there for longer. Whether $15/hour is "chickenshit," is irrelevant. It's all about supply and demand. It's up to each individual to make themselves valuable.
Whether we like it or not, with the increase of technology, people HAVE TO become proficient at more advanced jobs that may require more training. Inevitably, most cashiers, trash collectors, and road builders will be phased out and we will have the newer generations working on other tasks higher up in the chain.
A good example is the farming industry. Back in the good ol' days, more than 60% of the American population was farming just to eat, let alone to sell. Today, less than 3% of the US population farms and they feed this nation and have more than enough to sell worldwide. Of course, this is not the case 100% of the time, sometimes crops die, economies burst, etc. However, the trend remains that the less-skilled jobs are minimized as technology grows.
Remember that we create technology to do the work we don't like for us. I'm sure most people at check-out counters would rather be doing something else with their time; even if it is working somewhere else.
If all these people with $8000 in debt are like me, then, they have that debt because of bad financial planning and management and not because of lack of real wage growth.
I don't know about you, but I never feel abused after looking at some pron.
If the model(s), photographer, and viewer are all consenting people of legal age, then, there's no abuse whatsoever.
Actually US Mint is a privately owned organization partially funded by the federal government.
Don't be jealous ;)
The information has always been just as unsecure, but, now, it simply became readily apparent to Joe Newb.
I like their speakers, too, but I, particularly, like their subtle reference to Spinal Tap. ;)
"It goes to 11"
Justification and Righteousness aren't even the same thing; in English OR Spanish.
My point with the house example was to show that if a new generation of artists is born knowing that they won't be paid directly for their work, they won't miss it because they won't know the difference.
Just because something has always been done a certain way, doesn't mean that's the only right way or the way it should always be done. Downloading music is not stealing. I didn't take money from them. I didn't take any physical property. IP is not property. If it is, then let's REALLY treat it like property. When I buy a couch, the furniture store doesn't tell me under what circumstances I can resell it, that I can't use it use it for commercial purposes, that I can't show it in public, it doesn't tell me I can't alter it, it doesn't tell me I can't give it away or make copies of it. It doesn't tell me that they can take my couch away any time they feel I've violated their rules. No, I can do whatever the hell I want with it because it is MY damn couch. I can't post pics of it on the net. I can divulge to anyone what it's made of and how it's built. I can alter it and resell it as an original piece of art to my credit. IP is the only kind of "property" where the maker or distributor can tell you how to use it and can take it away from you, at any time for any reason.
Copyright was a good idea at the time. It's dated and too damn powerful. It will die out, in time. And yes, laws can and have been that fluid throughout time. They will keep on changing and you can't force a nation or the world to abide by rules that less than .01% of the population believes in.
The difference is that a single painter cannot pressure retailers into setting the prices he wants, he cannot saturate the media with his paintings, he cannot tell radio stations which songs to play, he cannot lobby in our government to create and pass laws the way the big companies can, he will most likely not be asked to pose drinking Coke for a commercial, etc, etc...
So, it is not the same.
Quick note: glass is not a liquid. Read here http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html
Twisted, I never said that all information should necessarily be free. I said all information will be free. Not because I think it it's pretty nifty how I don't pay anything, but because millions and millions of people will think it's pretty nifty how they don't have to pay anything.
Now, just because an artist won't be able to charge for every single time someone listen to his song, doesn't mean he won't be sponsored or making money in any way. Trust me. People will find a way to make money in any way possible.
Here's a quick example, by the way.The Sims Resource is a website with thousands upon thousands of different custom made objects for The Sims and The Sims 2. You can get 99% of all those objects for free on the internet, but instead, thousands(maybe more) of people have subscribed to this system because it's fast, convenient, easy to use, gives them the results they need. So, there will always be people that find niches in the economy and will profit from it. Once the music distro/publishing companies are gone, something else will take up the niche. What? I don't know.
Well... If you've grown up knowing that you won't get paid, why would you complain? It's like all of the sudden I start thinking, "Why don't I get paid every time someone looks at my house? After all, I designed and built it."
Now, the way you're presenting your argument, it sounds like you're assuming that all artists will inherently and naturally want to get paid for what they do.
And you misinterpreted my comment. I am IN FAVOR of free information. (as in free lunch and free speech.)
I don't understand why people don't realize that morals, ethics, and subsequently, laws, are fluid. They'll change with technology, culture, communications, etc. I think people will come to the realization, after a long while, that sharing music is not like stealing, at all. That intellectual property is not property, at all.
There's many obstacles and barriers, but, eventually, ethics and laws will give in to sheer social pressure.
There will come a point where anyone trying to enforce an anti-piracy law will seem as silly and outdated as someone getting a ticket for lending your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neightbor in Denver.
Oh, I know. It was more of a rhetorical question.
I think besides concerts, marketing products such as t-shirts, cups, jackets, posters, autographed stuff, and all that will be a musicians main source of income in a few years.
It's a matter of taste. If I'm looking to buy something and that's it, I'll just order online.
If I'm looking for some human interaction, then I'll go out with my friends, family, girlfriend, etc.
If I wanna know about a song, I can always ask call the store, anyway.
Obviously, everyone likes to get things free. It's obvious that if given the choice between paying $0 and paying ANY amount over that, people will choose $0 more likely than not.
I think it's time everyone woke up, including content creators such as musicians and movie makers, and took a long and realistic look at the way information is shared, today. They will realize that people sharing their intellectual "property" for free is truly inevitable.
All the efforts and money put into tracking pirates and creating new protection schemes, should be used into figuring out a way to still be able to sell people something they cannot get online. Sharing information will not stop. I think the question of whether it is immoral, illegal, or unethical is moot at this point. It will not be stopped and if you look closely, the new generations have even less and less inhibitions when it comes to "piracy".
Now, I wonder this: How will an artist born in a generation where he knows all his works can be traded for free, at any time, feel about it? Right now, most artists and publishers are complaining because they have seen the golden days, but what about the new kind of artist that is born knowing that he will most likely not be compensated monetarily for simply making a song?
You're right I did squared instead of cubed, but like I said in another reply, the volume of the smaller asteroids, if there are, in fact, 1000 would be the volume of the asteroid divided by 1000. In other words, .027sq (3x3x3/1000) miles per smaller asteroid.
You're right. I did do squared, instead of cubed. It should be 3*3*3=27. I have no idea how you got 54, but OK. It should've been 27sq miles. But the same principle applies. Divide 27sq miles and you get .027 sq miles per asteroid.
hmmmk... Let's say the asteroid is 3miles in length per side. It'd be 9 sq. miles, then. Divide 9sq. miles by 1000. and you get a 1000 asteroids of .009 sq miles each. You're right. This is 6th grade math. I don't see why you didn't get it.