Getting a degree in Art History is mostly a hobby for almost all that get one.
If you have just a BA in Art History, it's fairly unlikely that you will ever end up working at a job that requires an Art History degree specifically -- although, given the uselessness of a High School Diploma due to low standards, you may end up working at a near minimum wage job that requires, or at least prefers, a 2 or 4 year degree in something.
In almost all cases, the person would have been better served by getting a degree in something more marketable. It's actually cruel to lure students into wasting precious time that could have been spent better preparing for their future security by offering them a "free" eduction. It's, of course, even crueler to offer them student loans so while wasting their time on education with low ROI, they are also digging themselves into debt that will be very difficult to pay off due to a poor choice of field of study.
Sure, a rich trust fund baby can afford to pursue hobbies and pay for whatever education they wish to learn about those hobbies because they don't really need to work or can be pretty sure they will be set up in the family business. The rest of us can't.
Perhaps we should also offer government subsidized loans or fully subsidized educaiton for four year courses of study in "Monster Truck Racing" or "Skydiving For Fun and Excitement" also?
As well, it's mostly a compute power problem but in production quantities using commodity hardware, the mechanical components will dominate the cost. So, upgrading the electronic bits once (or maybe twice, but mechanical stuff wears out and at some point you will want new sensor feedback from the mechanical bits so there is a limit here) might expand the life at low cost of such robots.
But, tenure is a part of total compensation just as much as a dollar of salary, health insurance, a gym, on-site childcare, or free lunch/dinner are.
Different people will place a different value on tenure. Some (such as those that can't imagine working in the same environment for more than ten years) will attach very little value to tenure and some (such as those that like to settle into an environment and remain there comfortably until they retire) will place a high value on it. As a result, those that don't place much value on it are more likely to jump ship/not go into academia in the first place.
This car had been purchased with the "Find and Acquire Parking Space" (FAPS) option which, upon activation, locates any open parking space nearby and seeks to claim it as quickly as possible. The car simply noticed a space a couple hundred feet away and dove for it.
In other unrelated news, Volvo lawyers are recommending to the marketing department that the FAPS option only be available in conjunction with the Pedestrian Detection option.
You are proposing taxing people who can't afford to buy an electric car or live in a situation (such as an apartment) or work in a situation (any workplace that doesn't provide any, or enough, chargers) which make charging inpractical if they did buy. This in order to subsidize wealthy folks who can afford to buy and maintain a new electric car. Blatantly regressive taxes are often not very politically popular.
Electric cars still generate green house gases unless the power they use is derived from renewable or nuclear sources.
So, let's think a bit more boldly and use tax policy to really change behavior if that's our goal. Better might be to just put a very high tax, increasing each year, on all vehicles -- force people into dense cities and onto mass transit which we can optimize via government expenditures insuring proper maintenance and reducing the waste of each person having their own vehicle. These taxes will be spent to build mass transit. When the tax hits about $20K/year per vehicle, most people will be incented to move into the projects. As well, we can then turn the millions of now abandoned homes into farm land in many areas to produce food locally (the government can buy the land real cheap as the market value of single family homes would plummet and then resell it to agri-business Kelo style).
Although, perhaps the original submitter called them "pumps" rather than "dispenser control heads" because they assumed that was what most/. readers would understand. Generally it's best to communicate in the language your audience understands unless it confuses others -- and you, allegedly knowing how these things work, seem pretty confident that you understood what the submitter meant. Mission accomplished.
What about electric cars which are likely to only increase in market share? Do we put a tax on electricity to cover road maintenance so people who don't own or drive cars pay for roads every time they turn on a light? That doesn't seem fair.
The per mile (perhaps adjusted by a weight factor and/or a congestion factor) tax seems to make the most sense. The problems are in the details of implementation (privacy concerns, out of state drivers if the program is implemented at the state level, enforcement of the tax,...).
An explicit per mile tax might discourage excessive driving and therefore be more eco-friendly in the long term. People tend to ignore "bundled pricing" which is what the gas tax is. Making the tax explicit - you drive one mile, you pay 1.5 cents - is much more direct and likely to influence people's behavior more in the form of reducing their driving slightly.
Paying by distance does not "penalize" someone driving efficiently. It just ends the unfair practice of quietly redistributing the expense of maintaining the roads to others.
Although, if OR is so green, soon all the cars on the road will be electric and with just a gas tax there will be little money to maintain roads and they will, over time, become impassible. That would dramatically reduce the miles driven and the GHG released (including by fire engines and police cars that couldn't respond to your call for help) to near zero.
If weight fees make sense at all (for example, because of the fact that heavy vehicles cause more wear and tear on the roads and perhaps require building roads/bridges more robustly), they would make the same sense regardless of if the weight comes from batteries or lots of seats.
This will be easily resolved -- they just need to train folks in the assembly process to uncheck the box next to "Install SafeSecuritySuite" during the install.
Re:Any reasons for checking it out?
on
Rust 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
If "humans" are that incompetent (I assume you are referring to the "average" humans rather than particularly well informed humans?), then they are not suited for democracy. In that case, perhaps we should give up on this "democracy" thing and be ruled by the most effective gang/dictator.
Perhaps I have greater faith in humans than you do.
In the large state I live in, anyone can vote by mail permanently (I filed for "permanent vote by mail" status once, many years ago, and have never set foot in a polling place since) or in person on at least one weekend before the election (albeit at a few locations only). Our voter turnout sucks anyway - which is okay with me, anyone who can't be bothered to vote isn't going to be an informed voter anyway.
The rich and poor alike get exactly one vote each. That is the cornerstone of a democracy. Of course, almost all political matters in the US are decided not via a democracy but via a representative democracy (most notable exceptions being initiatives in those jurisdictions that have them).
If the poor choose not to vote or understand who/what they are voting for, that's hardly the fault of successful people.
If a voter is swayed by political advertising (which, generally, does cost money, some of which comes from the "super rich"), they are an uninformed voter. Would they be more informed if the U.S. could figure out how to ban all political advertising? I don't think so since no one is forced to view, listen to, or read political ads any more than they are forced to view, listen to, or read ads for iPhones (and, in the case of TV and radio, the political ads seem to simply replace ads for consumer bling during "high season") - thus, political ads don't take away the opportunity for voters to inform themselves.
I've wondered why those who care don't wire up a motion sensors inside their servers/desktops as well as sensors to detect obvious case opening and start wiping memory (and perhaps some of the disk as desired to wipe encrypted keys - obviously the file system would be encrypted in these cases) followed by a system reset to make this Law Enforcement attack less successful. Generally, Law Enforcement will move the computer to another site and detecting the exact nature of the sensors and disabling them without tripping the motion sensors could raise the cost/time a lot.
Of course, one doesn't want make the motion sensors too sensitive if one lives in California!
We just need to make H1-B's expensive to employers. That will insure that corporations who are looking for motivated well educated foreigners instead of lazy "special snowflake" domestic employees will have to decide that the foreign workers are worth the extra money.
First, enforce "comparable wages/jobs" rules. Second, impose a 20% to 30% tax on wages payable by the employer of an H1-B employee. Third, remove the cap entirely. This would result in it being impossible to hire foreign engineers to save money, but they would still be hired if they were at least 30% or so more effective than domestic talent. In reality, this wouldn't help save the jobs of those whining about H-1B employees, but it would force the whiners to recognize that employers won't give them a job but will happily shell out a LOT more money to get a more qualified H-1B employee -- i.e., it has little do do with money.
I've never hired an H-1B to save money -- in fact, they cost me more money than a domestic employee. However, I'd rather have five well educated motivated developers than 15 lazy uneducated bums with degrees from "respected" U.S. universities.
It's been quite some time since I looked at the methods for calculating load bearing strength of steel, concrete, and timber structural members but I don't recall there being a 'estrogen' factor with a nonzero coefficient in any of the formulas nor do I recall any such factors for "societally meaningful".
Not respecting a professor is NO excuse for cheating in his/her class. It is also not an excuse for disrupting class.
However, the professor also should have handled each student's grades individually. Perhaps he should have set up tests and assignments in such a way that they would catch cheating to expose more of it. But, he admits that '[...] that "a few" students had not engaged in misbehavior, and he said that those students were also the best academic performers' -- he should not have walked out on these students or attempted to fail them.
In a true free-market system, American Airlines and Boeing would have been sued into the dirt after 9-11 for allowing their planes to be used as weapons
It sounds like you would like a world where the manufacturer of any tool that could be used as a weapon is liable for all such uses by criminals?
Enjoy your $200,000 automobile (mostly liability insurance for the manufacturer) with a top speed of 10 MPH and sensors all around that prevent it from hitting anything at any angle and that refuses to go into an area in a way that may pose a hazard to other vehicles, pedestrians, or others (such as through a red light, stop sign, or across a sidewalk) legally crossing the same space. Oh, of course, if the traffic light is broken and stuck on Red, you just need to sit there, for days if needed, until the light is fixed since the car won't move and leaving an abandoned vehicle in a traffic lane certainly represents a hazard to other motorists so the system would automatically lock you in.
Would programmers, individually I assume, be responsible for any software they wrote that failed to prevent using the software in the commission of a crime that injures or kills others? For example, would a Google Maps engineer be liable for all injuries or deaths if someone used Google Maps to get directions to the airport and, upon arrival at the screening area, set off a bomb killing ten people? After all, obviously the engineer should have detected that the person mapping the route had nefarious intent at the destination (esp. if their search history or gmail account showed that they had looked at or bought pressure cookers recently).
But, why would anyone who actually had money offer hush money? What am I missing?
Once it's clear that Reddit is toast, the creditors own it and recover pennies on the dollar by selling the coffee machines. As an interim CEO, it's unlikely she has a golden parachute (although, I would respect her more if she had figured out how to negotiate a temp job w/a golden parachute -- but she asserts that women are not good at hard negotiations so I am unclear how that would happen).
I suppose one scenario is that Reddit sells for pennies on the dollar to a Yahoo! et al. However, the board will make that call and, as interim CEO, she probably gets 30 days notice and is out and done.
So, simply tell all applicants, in writing, that the company expects candidates to negotiate salary and benefits and doing so responsibly and effectively yet aggressively is considered a promising sign of a good candidate.
Did they publicly publish the votes (without, of course, the bonus information)?
Actually, peer voting can be quite biased -- esp. when money is involved. I worked at a company where a pretty nice "perk" (not cash") was given out to a few percent of the employees based almost entirely on a company wide voting process. They had to change this to "management decision guided by employee voting feedback" because it was clear that some people were getting votes not because of their skills or contributions but because people felt sorry for their personal situation in some way.
Indeed, knowing this policy, good candidates are likely to open with an absurdly high "salary requirement" since the final offer will, by policy, be the first round in what is normally a multiple round discussion.
The idea of "no negotiating" might be good, but it's not how our employment market for most "professional" jobs works so it's foolish to be a leader in it unless you are an 800lb gorilla that everyone wants to work for -- esp. for this reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Although, the reality is that Woz gets the last laugh in this case.
Getting a degree in Art History is mostly a hobby for almost all that get one.
If you have just a BA in Art History, it's fairly unlikely that you will ever end up working at a job that requires an Art History degree specifically -- although, given the uselessness of a High School Diploma due to low standards, you may end up working at a near minimum wage job that requires, or at least prefers, a 2 or 4 year degree in something.
In almost all cases, the person would have been better served by getting a degree in something more marketable. It's actually cruel to lure students into wasting precious time that could have been spent better preparing for their future security by offering them a "free" eduction. It's, of course, even crueler to offer them student loans so while wasting their time on education with low ROI, they are also digging themselves into debt that will be very difficult to pay off due to a poor choice of field of study.
Sure, a rich trust fund baby can afford to pursue hobbies and pay for whatever education they wish to learn about those hobbies because they don't really need to work or can be pretty sure they will be set up in the family business. The rest of us can't.
Perhaps we should also offer government subsidized loans or fully subsidized educaiton for four year courses of study in "Monster Truck Racing" or "Skydiving For Fun and Excitement" also?
As well, it's mostly a compute power problem but in production quantities using commodity hardware, the mechanical components will dominate the cost. So, upgrading the electronic bits once (or maybe twice, but mechanical stuff wears out and at some point you will want new sensor feedback from the mechanical bits so there is a limit here) might expand the life at low cost of such robots.
But, tenure is a part of total compensation just as much as a dollar of salary, health insurance, a gym, on-site childcare, or free lunch/dinner are.
Different people will place a different value on tenure. Some (such as those that can't imagine working in the same environment for more than ten years) will attach very little value to tenure and some (such as those that like to settle into an environment and remain there comfortably until they retire) will place a high value on it. As a result, those that don't place much value on it are more likely to jump ship/not go into academia in the first place.
This car had been purchased with the "Find and Acquire Parking Space" (FAPS) option which, upon activation, locates any open parking space nearby and seeks to claim it as quickly as possible. The car simply noticed a space a couple hundred feet away and dove for it.
In other unrelated news, Volvo lawyers are recommending to the marketing department that the FAPS option only be available in conjunction with the Pedestrian Detection option.
You are proposing taxing people who can't afford to buy an electric car or live in a situation (such as an apartment) or work in a situation (any workplace that doesn't provide any, or enough, chargers) which make charging inpractical if they did buy. This in order to subsidize wealthy folks who can afford to buy and maintain a new electric car. Blatantly regressive taxes are often not very politically popular.
Electric cars still generate green house gases unless the power they use is derived from renewable or nuclear sources.
So, let's think a bit more boldly and use tax policy to really change behavior if that's our goal. Better might be to just put a very high tax, increasing each year, on all vehicles -- force people into dense cities and onto mass transit which we can optimize via government expenditures insuring proper maintenance and reducing the waste of each person having their own vehicle. These taxes will be spent to build mass transit. When the tax hits about $20K/year per vehicle, most people will be incented to move into the projects. As well, we can then turn the millions of now abandoned homes into farm land in many areas to produce food locally (the government can buy the land real cheap as the market value of single family homes would plummet and then resell it to agri-business Kelo style).
Although, perhaps the original submitter called them "pumps" rather than "dispenser control heads" because they assumed that was what most /. readers would understand. Generally it's best to communicate in the language your audience understands unless it confuses others -- and you, allegedly knowing how these things work, seem pretty confident that you understood what the submitter meant. Mission accomplished.
What about electric cars which are likely to only increase in market share? Do we put a tax on electricity to cover road maintenance so people who don't own or drive cars pay for roads every time they turn on a light? That doesn't seem fair.
The per mile (perhaps adjusted by a weight factor and/or a congestion factor) tax seems to make the most sense. The problems are in the details of implementation (privacy concerns, out of state drivers if the program is implemented at the state level, enforcement of the tax, ...).
An explicit per mile tax might discourage excessive driving and therefore be more eco-friendly in the long term. People tend to ignore "bundled pricing" which is what the gas tax is. Making the tax explicit - you drive one mile, you pay 1.5 cents - is much more direct and likely to influence people's behavior more in the form of reducing their driving slightly.
Paying by distance does not "penalize" someone driving efficiently. It just ends the unfair practice of quietly redistributing the expense of maintaining the roads to others.
Although, if OR is so green, soon all the cars on the road will be electric and with just a gas tax there will be little money to maintain roads and they will, over time, become impassible. That would dramatically reduce the miles driven and the GHG released (including by fire engines and police cars that couldn't respond to your call for help) to near zero.
If weight fees make sense at all (for example, because of the fact that heavy vehicles cause more wear and tear on the roads and perhaps require building roads/bridges more robustly), they would make the same sense regardless of if the weight comes from batteries or lots of seats.
This will be easily resolved -- they just need to train folks in the assembly process to uncheck the box next to "Install SafeSecuritySuite" during the install.
Because it's shiny? Oh, wait, that can't be it.
If "humans" are that incompetent (I assume you are referring to the "average" humans rather than particularly well informed humans?), then they are not suited for democracy. In that case, perhaps we should give up on this "democracy" thing and be ruled by the most effective gang/dictator.
Perhaps I have greater faith in humans than you do.
In the large state I live in, anyone can vote by mail permanently (I filed for "permanent vote by mail" status once, many years ago, and have never set foot in a polling place since) or in person on at least one weekend before the election (albeit at a few locations only). Our voter turnout sucks anyway - which is okay with me, anyone who can't be bothered to vote isn't going to be an informed voter anyway.
The rich and poor alike get exactly one vote each. That is the cornerstone of a democracy. Of course, almost all political matters in the US are decided not via a democracy but via a representative democracy (most notable exceptions being initiatives in those jurisdictions that have them).
If the poor choose not to vote or understand who/what they are voting for, that's hardly the fault of successful people.
If a voter is swayed by political advertising (which, generally, does cost money, some of which comes from the "super rich"), they are an uninformed voter. Would they be more informed if the U.S. could figure out how to ban all political advertising? I don't think so since no one is forced to view, listen to, or read political ads any more than they are forced to view, listen to, or read ads for iPhones (and, in the case of TV and radio, the political ads seem to simply replace ads for consumer bling during "high season") - thus, political ads don't take away the opportunity for voters to inform themselves.
I've wondered why those who care don't wire up a motion sensors inside their servers/desktops as well as sensors to detect obvious case opening and start wiping memory (and perhaps some of the disk as desired to wipe encrypted keys - obviously the file system would be encrypted in these cases) followed by a system reset to make this Law Enforcement attack less successful. Generally, Law Enforcement will move the computer to another site and detecting the exact nature of the sensors and disabling them without tripping the motion sensors could raise the cost/time a lot.
Of course, one doesn't want make the motion sensors too sensitive if one lives in California!
We just need to make H1-B's expensive to employers. That will insure that corporations who are looking for motivated well educated foreigners instead of lazy "special snowflake" domestic employees will have to decide that the foreign workers are worth the extra money.
First, enforce "comparable wages/jobs" rules. Second, impose a 20% to 30% tax on wages payable by the employer of an H1-B employee. Third, remove the cap entirely. This would result in it being impossible to hire foreign engineers to save money, but they would still be hired if they were at least 30% or so more effective than domestic talent. In reality, this wouldn't help save the jobs of those whining about H-1B employees, but it would force the whiners to recognize that employers won't give them a job but will happily shell out a LOT more money to get a more qualified H-1B employee -- i.e., it has little do do with money.
I've never hired an H-1B to save money -- in fact, they cost me more money than a domestic employee. However, I'd rather have five well educated motivated developers than 15 lazy uneducated bums with degrees from "respected" U.S. universities.
It's been quite some time since I looked at the methods for calculating load bearing strength of steel, concrete, and timber structural members but I don't recall there being a 'estrogen' factor with a nonzero coefficient in any of the formulas nor do I recall any such factors for "societally meaningful".
Has something changed in the past couple decades?
Not respecting a professor is NO excuse for cheating in his/her class. It is also not an excuse for disrupting class.
However, the professor also should have handled each student's grades individually. Perhaps he should have set up tests and assignments in such a way that they would catch cheating to expose more of it. But, he admits that '[...] that "a few" students had not engaged in misbehavior, and he said that those students were also the best academic performers' -- he should not have walked out on these students or attempted to fail them.
It sounds like you would like a world where the manufacturer of any tool that could be used as a weapon is liable for all such uses by criminals?
Enjoy your $200,000 automobile (mostly liability insurance for the manufacturer) with a top speed of 10 MPH and sensors all around that prevent it from hitting anything at any angle and that refuses to go into an area in a way that may pose a hazard to other vehicles, pedestrians, or others (such as through a red light, stop sign, or across a sidewalk) legally crossing the same space. Oh, of course, if the traffic light is broken and stuck on Red, you just need to sit there, for days if needed, until the light is fixed since the car won't move and leaving an abandoned vehicle in a traffic lane certainly represents a hazard to other motorists so the system would automatically lock you in.
Would programmers, individually I assume, be responsible for any software they wrote that failed to prevent using the software in the commission of a crime that injures or kills others? For example, would a Google Maps engineer be liable for all injuries or deaths if someone used Google Maps to get directions to the airport and, upon arrival at the screening area, set off a bomb killing ten people? After all, obviously the engineer should have detected that the person mapping the route had nefarious intent at the destination (esp. if their search history or gmail account showed that they had looked at or bought pressure cookers recently).
But, why would anyone who actually had money offer hush money? What am I missing?
Once it's clear that Reddit is toast, the creditors own it and recover pennies on the dollar by selling the coffee machines. As an interim CEO, it's unlikely she has a golden parachute (although, I would respect her more if she had figured out how to negotiate a temp job w/a golden parachute -- but she asserts that women are not good at hard negotiations so I am unclear how that would happen).
I suppose one scenario is that Reddit sells for pennies on the dollar to a Yahoo! et al. However, the board will make that call and, as interim CEO, she probably gets 30 days notice and is out and done.
So, simply tell all applicants, in writing, that the company expects candidates to negotiate salary and benefits and doing so responsibly and effectively yet aggressively is considered a promising sign of a good candidate.
Did they publicly publish the votes (without, of course, the bonus information)?
Actually, peer voting can be quite biased -- esp. when money is involved. I worked at a company where a pretty nice "perk" (not cash") was given out to a few percent of the employees based almost entirely on a company wide voting process. They had to change this to "management decision guided by employee voting feedback" because it was clear that some people were getting votes not because of their skills or contributions but because people felt sorry for their personal situation in some way.
Hmm.. That's a possibility, but I'm not clear who she would sue at a bankrupt company with no remaining assets.
Indeed, knowing this policy, good candidates are likely to open with an absurdly high "salary requirement" since the final offer will, by policy, be the first round in what is normally a multiple round discussion.
The idea of "no negotiating" might be good, but it's not how our employment market for most "professional" jobs works so it's foolish to be a leader in it unless you are an 800lb gorilla that everyone wants to work for -- esp. for this reason.