I beg to differ. As a Blackberry user with this limitation I find it incredibly annoying. This is my ONLY phone device and I frequently spent 4-6 hours / day in con-call meetings. When someone says "here... I'll send you that number (or whatever)..." I can't get it until hanging up.
While I agree that the lack of simultaneous voice/data will not impact everyone, don't discount the importance of that in the business world.
With all due respect to the anti-conservative/capitalistic commentary (which has a lot of apparent validity) this type of situation occurs BECAUSE of government regulation... not because of insufficient regulation. At least in the US, governments have permitted and even encouraged monopolistic business practices that restrict the free market and customer choice. Whether traditional carriers (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) or traditional cable (Comcast, etc.) they all have PURCHASED - FROM THE GOVERNMENT - an exclusive territorial provider contract. That means that the very government that should be encouraging competition is in fact allowing the exact opposite. Because we consider ourselves more civilized, we no longer call this graft, corruption, bribery, etc. Instead we bury our collective heads in the sand, take the contract purchase dollars, and tell ourselves that its OK. Isn't it great that we are so good at lying to ourselves?
As a free-market capitalist, and traditional conservative, what I want to see is governments getting OUT of market control. Once there are multiple real choices in providers, with the associated competition for customers, we will see this disturbing trend reverse itself.
First, my condolences. I cannot imaging the pain your family is facing.
Second, I will concur with other posters. Don't focus so much on preserving your wife into the future that you forget to make memories now.
That said, I am having my family do something proactively that might be of service. Particularly with my mother (who at 64 isn't exactly old yet, but anything can happen).
Write letters. I mean the hand-written kind. One for birthdays, graduations, weddings, first jobs, grandchildren, and other major events. It will be difficult to do, but tell your wife to mentally take a trip to the future. She's watched her kids grow up and now face an important life event. What would she like to say to them? Advice? Congratulations? Stories? I would suggest having your wife do this in chronological order, giving her the opportunity to mentally and emotionally age the kids and take a mental stroll through their future.
You didn't mention your children's gender, but if they are girls I would also suggest those letters cover some of the mother/daughter talks about growing up. Menstruation, first boyfriend, first kiss... you get the idea.
Video is good, but sometimes they are hard to watch. And, as others have already commented, letting go and letting time dull the memories is just as important as remembering. The past is a great place to visit, but you can't live there.
After you wife has passed, you will be her representative. She can't parent from the grave (apologies if that sounds cold) simply because there isn't a 2-way conversation. But at least with these letters she can share her most important thoughts directly with the kids... and give you a starting place.
Great suggestion. I have one from my father. He's been gone 12 years, and one in a very long while I'll pull it out and spend some time in the past. If you do this though... be sure to store it in several layers of plastic. One won't be enough over time. 12 years and my dad's smell is just about gone.
As someone who is not in favor of the chicken-little approach to climate change, I would like to comment on this. I speak for no one but myself and would be happy to find errors in logic.
We *know* through geological records that this planet has undergone many changes in climate, including ice, flood, fire, drought, etc. Scientists *think* - based on the limited evidence available - that greenhouse gasses are the culprit. This time. Scientists also *know* that mankind, through industry and machinery, produces greenhouse gasses. Therefore mankind must be the cause. It's been a long time since I took logic, but as I see this as a questionable conclusion at best.
Assuming the information I have read is correct, greenhouse gasses are caused by nature far more than man. I can't find the reference, but recall a study published last year that showed the bovine population - both dairy and meat - producing more greenhouse gasses than all of mankind. So... do we eat less beef and drink less milk?
I believe that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of our environment, and as such should take reasonable precautions to protect our planet. However, let's not confuse that with the 'sky is falling' mantra. It may very well be, but when we speak in a geological time frame even as short as man's sojourn on this planet... there is simply insufficient evidence to be certain. That does not absolve us from responsibility as stewards, but it should temper our responses.
My conclusions:
1. Anyone who claims that the climate is not changing is lying to themselves. 2. Anyone who claims that they can prove WHY the climate is changing is lying to the rest of us. 3. Anyone who claims to have a solution is trying to sell you snake oil.
Regarding the OP, I sincerely hope that this issue isn't over. This is a debate that should continue.
I'll second that. Privacy aside, it will be a sad day when my own vehicle become the government's enforcer for speeding... reporting me for every violation.
I'm imagining a license system like in 'The Fifth Element". You get into your vehicle, insert your license... and it let's you drive based on a point system.
Every child in the use is entitled to a PUBLICLY FUNDED education up to the 12th grade. Unless you live in an petroleum or gambling funded state, that's not quite the same as FREE. Just look at your next property tax bill. Every single property PAYS for those children to get that education.
That said, it's ridiculous that our "free" educational systems cost more than many a university education. According to the National College Board, the average 2009-2010 cost for a university is $7,020 / year (http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html). According to the US Census Bureau (http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf) in 2007 (the latest numbers available) we paid an average of $9666 for each student. It's an interesting comparison and begs several quality control questions. I'll leave those for a different discussion.
Either way, nothing is free - or even cheap - when it's provided by the government.
Actually.... while PKD may have provided the original thought (I don't know this to be true or false), the move "Total Recall" was an adaptation of a Pier Anthony book by the same name.
I'll second this comment. Though not a professional genealogist, I am the family historian. Once you move more than 3-4 generations back you will exceed the scope of family lore and need external information to help you figure our where you come from.
For example, family lore held that my great-grandfather (GGF) immigrated from Wales. However, according to the US Census, it was his FATHER that immigrated. His mother came from Ohio. Once I knew that I was able to find my GGGF and that between 1900 (are you a US citizen = no) and 1910 (are you a US citizen = yes) something important changed. From that I was able to track down his citizenship application and find the town where he was born. Now I've jumped the pond and am working to find his parents. Fun times!
All of this started because the US Census asked several critical historical questions such as place of birth for you and your parents, parents names, age, marital status, citizenship, and occupation.
The fact that we are no longer asking these questions, whether for fear of offending or political correctness, is a travesty to future generations.
Fair enough... though I do not necessarily agree with Wikipedia.
Either way IT does not fit the criteria for a white-collar profession. No barrier to entry such as education. No professional organization. No licensing. No recognized code of ethics.
Like most people who work in or around IT I've got a closet full of give-away shirts. T-shits, polo's, and yes... dress-shirts.... all emblazoned with some company's pitch and all screaming "hey everyone... I work in IT". Don't laugh before you check your own wardrobe.
Have you ever worn one of these to work? Even once? If so, what's the difference? If you are willing to advertise another company's brand why shouldn't you be willing to wear your company's logo?
Of course, this is predicated on the idea that the "uniforms" in question are tasteful, button-down, collared shirts in a non-neon color and intended to be worn with your existing dress slacks. If you would wear it in public, then it shouldn't matter. As someone else has already pointed out it can be liberating to have a limited wardrobe to select from and financially beneficial to have someone else pay for it. If, however, you would NOT wear this in public, you have a very different decision to make.
While I generally agree with your perspective about teachers, please keep in mind three things.
1. Math is a core competency that does not fundamentally change. Adding, Subtracting, Multiplication, Division... even Calculus and beyond... has not changed, and it won't. What you learned in school will still be correct when you retire. The body of knowledge may grow and evolve, but the core won't change. 2. There are many other focus areas like this. 3. Computer science is NOT one of them! What I took in college 20 years ago may still form a foundation for my knowledge, but it's not relevant to today's students.
This makes the field of computer science different and necessitates teachers keeping up with the industry... something most CS prof's simply do not and can not do. Some - perhaps even many - are great and will do everything possible to give their students relevant, current information.
I think that the negative attitude toward teachers you perceive is geared toward a narrow slice of the profession.
Agreed. Someone went to a lot of effort, and spends a huge stack of cash every month to keep FB operating and providing those free services. Very little in life is truly free... and this is no different.
They provide us with an entertaining and occasionally useful service without any cash changing hands, but that doesn't mean there isn't a cost involved.
Don't like that they can re-use your "private" data? Don't post it. Want to post it? Regardless of whether your talking about Facebook, some other social site, or even just old-fashioned web pages, as soon as you post it... it's publicly available and there is nothing you can really do to prevent it.
My advice to FB users (that includes me) is to use the same common sense you should be using everywhere: don't post something your mother couldn't read. It's corny, but that perspective could keep a lot of people out of trouble.
If you really want something private, don't use a public social site to post it. There are plenty of web hosting companies to choose from, and for just a few dollars every month you can have space for a web page and stored files. Just find a secured template... and remember that nothing is ever - EVER - truly secure if it is publicly accessible.
No, what the death penalty accomplishes - assuming that the case is correctly adjudicated - is the prevention of THAT SINGLE INDIVIDUAL from ever committing a crime again.
Does it deter others? One would hope so, but that's not the primary goal.
Taking your arguments to the logical (and religiously zealot) extreme, let's just tattoo your national ID number onto the back of your hand - or forehead - and implant a chip. That way you won't be able to do ANYTHING unless the government knows about it and approves.
Dumb? Yep. Impossible? Unfortunately not. We're already heading this direction.
I'm not in favor of breaking laws, but at some point our country has gotten off track. We're no longer about liberty first. The only destination that road leads to is total communism.
Does anyone - government or otherwise - need to know when you have a drink? Not unless they plan to use that information at a later date... and we have too many clear example of how this is abused.
I don't get it. Of all the things going on in the World today, I don't get why this is such a hot issue. Actually, I don't get why folks are so opposed to it. It doesn't cause them any harm.
While that may feel socially good, that is unfortunately NOT accurate in the macro societal sense.
It doesn't matter what I personally believe, the issues are the same.
1. Do I get to enforce my beliefs upon society at large?
2. Am I forced to accept your beliefs when they are contradictory with my own?
It's nothing more complex than that, and our country was founded on some great principles, namely that of "majority rules" and "minority rights", to help mediate these two opposing perspectives.
In this particular case, a large percentage of the people of California - the clear majority - spoke out against a change that they didn't want. Why they voted this way doesn't matter, only that the majority voted to keep the current status.
So, should anyone have the right to overturn the results of a valid ballot count? Note that there is no question of win-versus-lose. The counts are not in question. If the proposition was legally on the ballot, it was voted for in a legal election, the count was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and the proposition passed, then it passed and there is nothing that *should* be done. There is simply too much at stake to risk setting that precedent.
How does this hurt us? Any time a few people can overturn the will of the people is our problem because it reduces the value of our entire system of government.
I too have already voted, so this is really just a philosophical discussio
Regarding assignment of responsibility, it's easy to say "they were in charge and therefore they get the blame", but in my opinion that really doesn't address the underlying issue. The truth, as I see it, is that our elected representatives are responsible. Period. It's not about which party is responsible. Once the elections are over, EVERYONE is responsible. The president doesn't lead. The congress doesn't lead. There's a large group of people running amuck in DC, each professing to have ideals but very few actually voting that way. Thus, the only way to affect change is at the ballot box.
My recommendation: We need a full representative transfusion. Everyone should go. There's just one problem with that though... the only way to make that happen is term limits. Sound great, on the surface, but it would not hold up constitutionally. Do I - or any of you - have the right to tell someone else how to vote? If so, let's have term limits. If not... then you have the right to vote for someone a second, third, fourth... even tenth time. It's as easy as that.
So, we can't limit terms, and without term limits we get professional politicians who aren't really keeping his/her end of the bargain to represent the people that elected them. All we can do is to actively and passionately pursue changes in the electorate, communicate with our representatives and leaders, publicize our concerns, and either punish or reward them based on their actions.
Capitalism works, but you've got to understand what capitalism actually is. Capitalism = Competition without undue interference, wherein the consumers of a product or service get to decide how much a product or service costs (based on demand for supply). Nothing in the definition requires a monetary exchange; just consideration.
Using this logic, Firefox is an ultimate example of capitalism... not a example of why it doesn't work.
Please... do not lie. This may get you hired, but comes with two major drawbacks.
First, you have to live with yourself. If you get a great job but lied to do it, someday you'll look in the mirror and not like what you see.
Second, as most politician's can verify, this approach has a way of coming around and biting you in the ass. Someday you'll be going for another job and someone you knew back then will be the boss/hr/interviewer/etc. They'll ask you about it... and know that you are lying.
Also, as you move up in rank many organizations conduct background checks. One of these will very likely uncover any misrepresentation you've offered... and will also likely result in a "thanks but no thanks" response.
Am I suggesting that 100% of the truth 100% of the time is necessary? Nope. There's a blank spot on my resume too. I leave it blank then address it in person... where I can give them the bigger picture. I've yet to have an interviewer not accept that approach. My resume, however, does get me in the door.
Suggestion:
Create a functional resume rather than simply a list of jobs. This generally works better for higher-end jobs anyway. Focus on what you can do rather than how/where you got the experience.
Other comments:
1. Improve your interviewing skills. Do you play golf? Even Tiger takes a few practice swings before hitting the ball. Each and every time.
2. While you're looking/waiting, take some courses on your own. You don't have to do anything more than buy a book. Just stay busy. And... document your efforts!
Great observation! As is frequently true, "the devil is in the details".
I'll add one item to #5: Hit Ratio. If they confiscate tens of thousands of laptops / devices, how many of those actually proved to be valid? I understand (using the logic of the DHS) that some laptops will be confiscated that prove to be of no consequence. However, if the DHS is encroaching on our civil liberties they dang well better show some positive outcome. Of course, that probably just means that someone will hold the office of "Manager of Evidence Creation" and be responsible for ensuring a minimum hit ratio.
Hmmm... that is an interesting concept.
For an attorney to practice law in any state, he/she must pay a "mandatory tax" in the form of a yearly state licensing fee. Only then can the law be shared.
Nah... it'll never work!
Rather than the presentation layer technology (Silverlight) I am far more annoyed/concerned by the player. The DNC (by virtue of contracting development for this site) is forcing yet-another-media-player to be installed. What the hell for? As the parent poster correctly notes, Media Player, RealPlayer, QuickTime, xine, etc. should all be able to play virtually any common format. The requirement to force installation of another player seems far too self-serving. If it were any group but a political party I would suggest that either (1) someone in power had a large investment in the player company, or (2) the player might have undocumented 'features' that captured usage data... or anything else. Good thing our political parties would *never* do anything like that!
let's implant GPS/RFID units in every man, woman and child so we can track movement, require positive ID for book and movie purchases, and mandate health-club memberships.
Yeah... life will be good as soon as our benevolent government can track and dictate everything we do. After all... it's for our own good.
NOT!
Seriously though, as soon as any government determines that every movement needs to be tracked in a virtual world, how quickly will that translate to the real world?
I will respectfully disagree... depending on what you are trying to accomplish.
It is absolutely true that most of the non-US world views university time as a students opportunity to learn how to do a job. Is that bad? Not at all... as long as you are happy with this approach.
You can go to a technical school, learn programming theory, languages, techniques, approaches, etc., and be very good at programming.
Then what? Go get a job where you're asked to create a program - probably business oriented - that does something useful. This is where the non-US model starts falling apart. After 3-4 years of focusing on technical content only you probably won't have a clue what that useful business purpose is.
I'm not a programmer but would strongly suggest that unless you want to be "just a programmer", you need to broaden your skills. Take business courses (accounting, management, ethics), some liberal arts (literature, and especially writing), debate, communications, and yes, even non-programming technologies like general info-sec.
Programming theory is good. If you're half-way smart you will spend the rest of your life learning to finesse the languages. Take this opportunity to learn about how the world works. You'll be a better programmer, know how to talk to the business, bring value-add to your projects, and in the end be more than just a technogeek. At the very least you'll end up leading teams of people... probably made up of those who went the techo-only route.
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ. As a Blackberry user with this limitation I find it incredibly annoying. This is my ONLY phone device and I frequently spent 4-6 hours / day in con-call meetings. When someone says "here... I'll send you that number (or whatever)..." I can't get it until hanging up.
While I agree that the lack of simultaneous voice/data will not impact everyone, don't discount the importance of that in the business world.
With all due respect to the anti-conservative/capitalistic commentary (which has a lot of apparent validity) this type of situation occurs BECAUSE of government regulation... not because of insufficient regulation. At least in the US, governments have permitted and even encouraged monopolistic business practices that restrict the free market and customer choice. Whether traditional carriers (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) or traditional cable (Comcast, etc.) they all have PURCHASED - FROM THE GOVERNMENT - an exclusive territorial provider contract. That means that the very government that should be encouraging competition is in fact allowing the exact opposite. Because we consider ourselves more civilized, we no longer call this graft, corruption, bribery, etc. Instead we bury our collective heads in the sand, take the contract purchase dollars, and tell ourselves that its OK. Isn't it great that we are so good at lying to ourselves?
As a free-market capitalist, and traditional conservative, what I want to see is governments getting OUT of market control. Once there are multiple real choices in providers, with the associated competition for customers, we will see this disturbing trend reverse itself.
First, my condolences. I cannot imaging the pain your family is facing.
Second, I will concur with other posters. Don't focus so much on preserving your wife into the future that you forget to make memories now.
That said, I am having my family do something proactively that might be of service. Particularly with my mother (who at 64 isn't exactly old yet, but anything can happen).
Write letters. I mean the hand-written kind. One for birthdays, graduations, weddings, first jobs, grandchildren, and other major events. It will be difficult to do, but tell your wife to mentally take a trip to the future. She's watched her kids grow up and now face an important life event. What would she like to say to them? Advice? Congratulations? Stories? I would suggest having your wife do this in chronological order, giving her the opportunity to mentally and emotionally age the kids and take a mental stroll through their future.
You didn't mention your children's gender, but if they are girls I would also suggest those letters cover some of the mother/daughter talks about growing up. Menstruation, first boyfriend, first kiss... you get the idea.
Video is good, but sometimes they are hard to watch. And, as others have already commented, letting go and letting time dull the memories is just as important as remembering. The past is a great place to visit, but you can't live there.
After you wife has passed, you will be her representative. She can't parent from the grave (apologies if that sounds cold) simply because there isn't a 2-way conversation. But at least with these letters she can share her most important thoughts directly with the kids... and give you a starting place.
Great suggestion. I have one from my father. He's been gone 12 years, and one in a very long while I'll pull it out and spend some time in the past. If you do this though... be sure to store it in several layers of plastic. One won't be enough over time. 12 years and my dad's smell is just about gone.
As someone who is not in favor of the chicken-little approach to climate change, I would like to comment on this. I speak for no one but myself and would be happy to find errors in logic.
We *know* through geological records that this planet has undergone many changes in climate, including ice, flood, fire, drought, etc. Scientists *think* - based on the limited evidence available - that greenhouse gasses are the culprit. This time. Scientists also *know* that mankind, through industry and machinery, produces greenhouse gasses. Therefore mankind must be the cause. It's been a long time since I took logic, but as I see this as a questionable conclusion at best.
Assuming the information I have read is correct, greenhouse gasses are caused by nature far more than man. I can't find the reference, but recall a study published last year that showed the bovine population - both dairy and meat - producing more greenhouse gasses than all of mankind. So... do we eat less beef and drink less milk?
I believe that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of our environment, and as such should take reasonable precautions to protect our planet. However, let's not confuse that with the 'sky is falling' mantra. It may very well be, but when we speak in a geological time frame even as short as man's sojourn on this planet... there is simply insufficient evidence to be certain. That does not absolve us from responsibility as stewards, but it should temper our responses.
My conclusions:
1. Anyone who claims that the climate is not changing is lying to themselves.
2. Anyone who claims that they can prove WHY the climate is changing is lying to the rest of us.
3. Anyone who claims to have a solution is trying to sell you snake oil.
Regarding the OP, I sincerely hope that this issue isn't over. This is a debate that should continue.
Cheers
I'll second that. Privacy aside, it will be a sad day when my own vehicle become the government's enforcer for speeding... reporting me for every violation.
I'm imagining a license system like in 'The Fifth Element". You get into your vehicle, insert your license... and it let's you drive based on a point system.
Funny? Perhaps.
Impossible? Nope!
Terrifying? Absolutely!
Every child in the use is entitled to a PUBLICLY FUNDED education up to the 12th grade. Unless you live in an petroleum or gambling funded state, that's not quite the same as FREE. Just look at your next property tax bill. Every single property PAYS for those children to get that education.
That said, it's ridiculous that our "free" educational systems cost more than many a university education. According to the National College Board, the average 2009-2010 cost for a university is $7,020 / year (http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html). According to the US Census Bureau (http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf) in 2007 (the latest numbers available) we paid an average of $9666 for each student. It's an interesting comparison and begs several quality control questions. I'll leave those for a different discussion.
Either way, nothing is free - or even cheap - when it's provided by the government.
Actually.... while PKD may have provided the original thought (I don't know this to be true or false), the move "Total Recall" was an adaptation of a Pier Anthony book by the same name.
I'll second this comment. Though not a professional genealogist, I am the family historian. Once you move more than 3-4 generations back you will exceed the scope of family lore and need external information to help you figure our where you come from.
For example, family lore held that my great-grandfather (GGF) immigrated from Wales. However, according to the US Census, it was his FATHER that immigrated. His mother came from Ohio. Once I knew that I was able to find my GGGF and that between 1900 (are you a US citizen = no) and 1910 (are you a US citizen = yes) something important changed. From that I was able to track down his citizenship application and find the town where he was born. Now I've jumped the pond and am working to find his parents. Fun times!
All of this started because the US Census asked several critical historical questions such as place of birth for you and your parents, parents names, age, marital status, citizenship, and occupation.
The fact that we are no longer asking these questions, whether for fear of offending or political correctness, is a travesty to future generations.
Fair enough... though I do not necessarily agree with Wikipedia.
Either way IT does not fit the criteria for a white-collar profession. No barrier to entry such as education. No professional organization. No licensing. No recognized code of ethics.
Like most people who work in or around IT I've got a closet full of give-away shirts. T-shits, polo's, and yes... dress-shirts.... all emblazoned with some company's pitch and all screaming "hey everyone... I work in IT". Don't laugh before you check your own wardrobe.
Have you ever worn one of these to work? Even once? If so, what's the difference? If you are willing to advertise another company's brand why shouldn't you be willing to wear your company's logo?
Of course, this is predicated on the idea that the "uniforms" in question are tasteful, button-down, collared shirts in a non-neon color and intended to be worn with your existing dress slacks. If you would wear it in public, then it shouldn't matter. As someone else has already pointed out it can be liberating to have a limited wardrobe to select from and financially beneficial to have someone else pay for it. If, however, you would NOT wear this in public, you have a very different decision to make.
I hate to disillusion you, but IT has always been blue collar.
While I generally agree with your perspective about teachers, please keep in mind three things.
1. Math is a core competency that does not fundamentally change. Adding, Subtracting, Multiplication, Division... even Calculus and beyond... has not changed, and it won't. What you learned in school will still be correct when you retire. The body of knowledge may grow and evolve, but the core won't change.
2. There are many other focus areas like this.
3. Computer science is NOT one of them! What I took in college 20 years ago may still form a foundation for my knowledge, but it's not relevant to today's students.
This makes the field of computer science different and necessitates teachers keeping up with the industry... something most CS prof's simply do not and can not do. Some - perhaps even many - are great and will do everything possible to give their students relevant, current information.
I think that the negative attitude toward teachers you perceive is geared toward a narrow slice of the profession.
J
Agreed. Someone went to a lot of effort, and spends a huge stack of cash every month to keep FB operating and providing those free services. Very little in life is truly free... and this is no different.
They provide us with an entertaining and occasionally useful service without any cash changing hands, but that doesn't mean there isn't a cost involved.
Don't like that they can re-use your "private" data? Don't post it. Want to post it? Regardless of whether your talking about Facebook, some other social site, or even just old-fashioned web pages, as soon as you post it... it's publicly available and there is nothing you can really do to prevent it.
My advice to FB users (that includes me) is to use the same common sense you should be using everywhere: don't post something your mother couldn't read. It's corny, but that perspective could keep a lot of people out of trouble.
If you really want something private, don't use a public social site to post it. There are plenty of web hosting companies to choose from, and for just a few dollars every month you can have space for a web page and stored files. Just find a secured template... and remember that nothing is ever - EVER - truly secure if it is publicly accessible.
Cheers, and happy Facebooking!
Jim
No, what the death penalty accomplishes - assuming that the case is correctly adjudicated - is the prevention of THAT SINGLE INDIVIDUAL from ever committing a crime again.
Does it deter others? One would hope so, but that's not the primary goal.
Taking your arguments to the logical (and religiously zealot) extreme, let's just tattoo your national ID number onto the back of your hand - or forehead - and implant a chip. That way you won't be able to do ANYTHING unless the government knows about it and approves.
Dumb? Yep. Impossible? Unfortunately not. We're already heading this direction.
I'm not in favor of breaking laws, but at some point our country has gotten off track. We're no longer about liberty first. The only destination that road leads to is total communism.
Does anyone - government or otherwise - need to know when you have a drink? Not unless they plan to use that information at a later date... and we have too many clear example of how this is abused.
I don't get it. Of all the things going on in the World today, I don't get why this is such a hot issue. Actually, I don't get why folks are so opposed to it. It doesn't cause them any harm.
While that may feel socially good, that is unfortunately NOT accurate in the macro societal sense.
It doesn't matter what I personally believe, the issues are the same.
1. Do I get to enforce my beliefs upon society at large?
2. Am I forced to accept your beliefs when they are contradictory with my own?
It's nothing more complex than that, and our country was founded on some great principles, namely that of "majority rules" and "minority rights", to help mediate these two opposing perspectives.
In this particular case, a large percentage of the people of California - the clear majority - spoke out against a change that they didn't want. Why they voted this way doesn't matter, only that the majority voted to keep the current status.
So, should anyone have the right to overturn the results of a valid ballot count? Note that there is no question of win-versus-lose. The counts are not in question. If the proposition was legally on the ballot, it was voted for in a legal election, the count was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and the proposition passed, then it passed and there is nothing that *should* be done. There is simply too much at stake to risk setting that precedent.
How does this hurt us? Any time a few people can overturn the will of the people is our problem because it reduces the value of our entire system of government.
I too have already voted, so this is really just a philosophical discussio
Regarding assignment of responsibility, it's easy to say "they were in charge and therefore they get the blame", but in my opinion that really doesn't address the underlying issue. The truth, as I see it, is that our elected representatives are responsible. Period. It's not about which party is responsible. Once the elections are over, EVERYONE is responsible. The president doesn't lead. The congress doesn't lead. There's a large group of people running amuck in DC, each professing to have ideals but very few actually voting that way. Thus, the only way to affect change is at the ballot box.
My recommendation: We need a full representative transfusion. Everyone should go. There's just one problem with that though... the only way to make that happen is term limits. Sound great, on the surface, but it would not hold up constitutionally. Do I - or any of you - have the right to tell someone else how to vote? If so, let's have term limits. If not... then you have the right to vote for someone a second, third, fourth... even tenth time. It's as easy as that.
So, we can't limit terms, and without term limits we get professional politicians who aren't really keeping his/her end of the bargain to represent the people that elected them. All we can do is to actively and passionately pursue changes in the electorate, communicate with our representatives and leaders, publicize our concerns, and either punish or reward them based on their actions.
Cheers!
Competition *IS* great!
Capitalism works, but you've got to understand what capitalism actually is. Capitalism = Competition without undue interference, wherein the consumers of a product or service get to decide how much a product or service costs (based on demand for supply). Nothing in the definition requires a monetary exchange; just consideration.
Using this logic, Firefox is an ultimate example of capitalism... not a example of why it doesn't work.
Please... do not lie. This may get you hired, but comes with two major drawbacks.
First, you have to live with yourself. If you get a great job but lied to do it, someday you'll look in the mirror and not like what you see.
Second, as most politician's can verify, this approach has a way of coming around and biting you in the ass. Someday you'll be going for another job and someone you knew back then will be the boss/hr/interviewer/etc. They'll ask you about it... and know that you are lying.
Also, as you move up in rank many organizations conduct background checks. One of these will very likely uncover any misrepresentation you've offered... and will also likely result in a "thanks but no thanks" response.
Am I suggesting that 100% of the truth 100% of the time is necessary? Nope. There's a blank spot on my resume too. I leave it blank then address it in person... where I can give them the bigger picture. I've yet to have an interviewer not accept that approach. My resume, however, does get me in the door.
Suggestion:
Create a functional resume rather than simply a list of jobs. This generally works better for higher-end jobs anyway. Focus on what you can do rather than how/where you got the experience.
Other comments:
1. Improve your interviewing skills. Do you play golf? Even Tiger takes a few practice swings before hitting the ball. Each and every time.
2. While you're looking/waiting, take some courses on your own. You don't have to do anything more than buy a book. Just stay busy. And... document your efforts!
Great observation! As is frequently true, "the devil is in the details".
I'll add one item to #5: Hit Ratio. If they confiscate tens of thousands of laptops / devices, how many of those actually proved to be valid? I understand (using the logic of the DHS) that some laptops will be confiscated that prove to be of no consequence. However, if the DHS is encroaching on our civil liberties they dang well better show some positive outcome. Of course, that probably just means that someone will hold the office of "Manager of Evidence Creation" and be responsible for ensuring a minimum hit ratio.
Hmmm... that is an interesting concept. For an attorney to practice law in any state, he/she must pay a "mandatory tax" in the form of a yearly state licensing fee. Only then can the law be shared. Nah... it'll never work!
Rather than the presentation layer technology (Silverlight) I am far more annoyed/concerned by the player. The DNC (by virtue of contracting development for this site) is forcing yet-another-media-player to be installed. What the hell for? As the parent poster correctly notes, Media Player, RealPlayer, QuickTime, xine, etc. should all be able to play virtually any common format. The requirement to force installation of another player seems far too self-serving. If it were any group but a political party I would suggest that either (1) someone in power had a large investment in the player company, or (2) the player might have undocumented 'features' that captured usage data... or anything else. Good thing our political parties would *never* do anything like that!
Yeah... life will be good as soon as our benevolent government can track and dictate everything we do. After all... it's for our own good.
NOT!
Seriously though, as soon as any government determines that every movement needs to be tracked in a virtual world, how quickly will that translate to the real world?
It is absolutely true that most of the non-US world views university time as a students opportunity to learn how to do a job. Is that bad? Not at all... as long as you are happy with this approach.
You can go to a technical school, learn programming theory, languages, techniques, approaches, etc., and be very good at programming.
Then what? Go get a job where you're asked to create a program - probably business oriented - that does something useful. This is where the non-US model starts falling apart. After 3-4 years of focusing on technical content only you probably won't have a clue what that useful business purpose is.
I'm not a programmer but would strongly suggest that unless you want to be "just a programmer", you need to broaden your skills. Take business courses (accounting, management, ethics), some liberal arts (literature, and especially writing), debate, communications, and yes, even non-programming technologies like general info-sec.
Programming theory is good. If you're half-way smart you will spend the rest of your life learning to finesse the languages. Take this opportunity to learn about how the world works. You'll be a better programmer, know how to talk to the business, bring value-add to your projects, and in the end be more than just a technogeek. At the very least you'll end up leading teams of people... probably made up of those who went the techo-only route.
Jim