To me the concept is exactly the same as a cop chasing a criminal who has run into a department store. The officer runs in and starts looking at every face until he finds the criminal. Do we get upset at the officer and get up in his face about looking at us while he was trying to find the criminal?
You can not base your life around the next big career path. What if I were to tell you that I know of a career where you can train for 6 weeks and start earning 6 figures right away? Would you be interested? If so, then you are just out for money. Quit asking "How much can I make?" and start asking "What do I want to do?"
The truth is that every career path will lead to riches. You can get rich by being a janitor; starting out at some small company and then starting your own cleaning service after you have built up some experience. Contract out to a few office buildings, hire you a compent staff, and rake in the money. You can make money at any profession, you just have to work hard. There is no such thing as a magical career path. If you are looking for easy money, then sink all your money in the lottery.
Okay, we start out with 6 people, all in favor of a more open, democratic type of business. No one cares about the money, they just want to make a great product and treat everyone fair.
After a few years, they start to see success. Money starts coming in. One of the six starts to think that he is the reason for the success and the other 5 are riding his coat-tails. Everything up till this point has been pretty much his idea he belives and the others just worked to make it happen. So now he wants more money than the others. The guy who put the company together and got the ball rolling, feels that he should be compensated. It is "his" company after all. A third member does not like having to put in all the long hours like everyone else. Everyone else is single with no family life. However, he is married with two kids. Why should he have to work 10 hours a day? But he also feels that he should get paid the same, because even though he doesn't work as long, he works every bit as hard.
Now, someone has to make a decision on all these issues. Who makes the decision? The group can't come to a conclusion. Even if they did, there would still be people in the company who didn't agree with the decision (A majority vote will always leave the minority angry.). So now you have some guys getting what they want, and some not. That sounds just like every single company out there, regardless of how it is run. At the end of the day, we are all human. No matter how much candy coating we do, life is not a fairy tale where people all magically get along and never disagree. Look at any rock band and you will see case after case of falling outs among "equals." At the end of the day, human nature is to take control and be greedy.
I agree, it won't break Apple, and Jobs shouldn't lose his job unless the people involved start showing up dead. Otherwise, claiming Jobs' days are numbered is ludicrous.
I agree; any comparison to Enron may be way off base in this matter. What I find interesting though, is the quick "rush" to defend Jobs and Apple as a whole. We don't know the facts yet. When Enron's problems first started to creep out into the light, they tried to downplay it as nothing more than a "correction."
I just see a dual standard. Had this been Gates and Microsoft, everyone would be calling for an SEC investigation and there would be predictions that Gates would wind up in prison. Let's just all try to be fair. If Jobs did something wrong, he needs to admit it, take his punishment and we can move on. However, let's don't pretend this is nothing more than a miss-placed $5 bill. (My comments are not directed at you personally, but at the forum in general.)
This keeps getting repeated. "Old way is inferior to the new way." With the new way always being a more laid back, less money oriented approach.
I have news for that will just shock the world. Companies like Google and Apple are run just like every other company. People are hired for what they can do, and are let go for not living up to their potential. CEOs do what makes them more money. The only difference, is the that "new way" hides their intent behind an "employee friendly facade." How can Apple be part of the new way when Jobs is notorious for being the typical power hungry boss who will ridicule you in front of your coworkers? How is that the "new way"?
Google and Apple are not some awesome place where everyone just relaxes all day being "creative" and yet somehow still make money. At both companies, goals are set and if they are met people get in trouble or even fired. Just like at every other company. These companies also live and die by their stock value. Who was that bough an oversized company jet and decided to refit it? Was that some greedy boss at Bellsouth or Enron? Nope, it was the good natured guys at Google who don't care about money, right?
I just want to make it clear, I am not calling those who oppose religion, crazy. They may very well have a valid viewpoint. My viewpoint is that religion has an inherent positive nature. Trying to get someone to cut their ties to that is destructive. The way I see it, there are people out there trying to actively destroy organized religion. The posts I have read on this board seem to back that up.
It isn't really about the tax or the church vs. state issue. It is the non-religious crowd wanting to destroy organized religion. I find that to be wrong. True, churches can go overboard sometimes in recruiting new members, although I have never been approached by anyone to join their church. If we want to fight overly agressive recruitment by the church, we don't do that by being overly agressive in getting people to abandon church.
I just find it wrong to get people to abandon something that makes them happy and may give them meaning in their lives, just because a group out there doesn't like it. The church may try to shove their viewpoints down everyone's throat, but so is the non-religious crowd. That isn't really a good example to set.
This article smacks of anti-religious propaganda. FTA, it is stated that the main reason people are leaving is to avoid taxes. This isn't some great coup for the anti-religious crowd. I can support the seperation of church and state. But that isn't what is going on here. People aren't being encouraged to seperate the two, they are being encouraged to abandon religion all together. What are the numbers of new enrollment in other religions besides the state run religion, in Finland? I am just saying that if your desire is to seperate church and state, then create a movement to seperate the two. Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.
The only reason I can think of for a mish-mash of programming language is that you want to be the only person around who can figure it out. I have seen it done quite often in the IT industry. I personally don't agree with it, but it can be a very effective tool for making sure that you don't visit the unemployment office too often.
If that is the case, then mix in everything that you can possibly think of. XML, PHP, Perl, put in some VBScript, maybe even javascript. Learn some Flash and throw that in as well, for some video or splash screen or something. Doesn't really matter what you use it for. If you are using a database backend, and chances are good that you are, don't just use one database. Use a variety of database programs, each with one table. That way you can make tons of database connections in the code and they will all look different. It will leave them guessing for years why you did it that way. (People will usually assume that you had a reason for doing it that way, even if they can't figure out why.) Just as long as the next guy to try and work on it can't figure it out. That way, you can sit by the phone and wait for it to ring.
Now of course, if you are just trying to make an efficient streamlined program, then I would pick PERL as the language and go from there. You may find that PERL doesn't meet all your needs, and you can add in things as needed, but just keep it small. Oh, and don't forget to document everything. Chances are, that unless it is an overly easy application, you aren't going to remember everything.
Panic attacks can be treated with medication. There is no shame in it. Also, you could be showing signs of fatigue. College can wear people out. Maybe your body is getting exhausted, which is triggering the panic attacks and not the test. The test is just the final straw, as your body strains to recall everything.
Either way, go see a doctor. The panic attacks could be a sign of a vitamin deficiency, not enough sleep, or any number of other ailments.
I agree with the judges regardless of who the person actually was. Patents should not protect con-artists. What keeps the person from marketing their amazing "Egg that can stand on it's head" to millions of young kids? It would be a total rip-off of the consumer. The same as me selling a plant that talks, as long as you go buy a talking parrott and put it on top of the plant.
The person in the story seems more like a jester or a street performer, with his riddles. It is comical, but not patenable. Can I patent newspapers because no one can guess what is "black and white and read all over."? Just because the judges weren't able to answer the riddle off the top of their head, doesn't mean it wasn't obvious. Breaking the egg takes no special talent and didn't involve any research or deep thought. Can I patent a method for fixing your car by selling it and buying another? Viola, it is fixed!!
Patents should encourage true academic research and scientific experiments. Not someone's ability to trick others.
Wait, I won't be able to patent stupidly obvious things anymore? Oh no!!! I might have to actually get a job and make a real living. This can not stand! Time for me to sell my library of patents for turning on a light, sitting in a chair, making cigarettes, etc.
I did use Windows 3.1. I also used Windows 95, 98, ME and Windows XP. I just recently tried the public beta of Vista. Now, I am a long time Windows user and I can admit that Vista is crap. It is nothing more than a graphical update that comes with a steep price in terms of hardware. It is nothing more than an attempt to scratch the back of the hardware industry by requiring people to either upgrade or buy all new computers. (Which I believe Windows will hope persuade PC manufacturers to abanadon any plans with Linux.)
Sadly, it will still sell millions of copies and be a huge money maker for Microsoft. Why? Because all those Windows users are not going to convert to something else, which leaves them to either update or get stuck in the past. The entire computer industry has done a marvelous job of convincing people that they must upgrade at the drop of the hat, which they will.
It really is sad though, that Vista is absolutely nothing substantial. They could have just taken 6 months, and 1/10th of the cost to put a new graphic look ontop of XP, and called it a day.
I read an article a long time ago with someone from Microsoft, I believe it was one of their marketing directors. (Some title like "Chief Technology Director" or something like that comes to mind.) He runs two computers, one with Linux and one with Windows. The guy stated multiple times about how Linux was pretty good for servers. (I will have to dig to find the article.)
Sure, MS makes a server product. I never said they didn't. But it seems to me that MS doesn't mind losing server market shar to Linux if they can at the same time pigeon-hole it as just a server OS. The home and business desktop market for Windows is so huge, I don't think they would mind burying their competition by giving them a certain market.
If you are the most successful car dealership in town, you might let a new upstart dealership take the used car business from you, because you make so much on new cars. Once the competition has the used car business locked up, you can pigen hole them as just a used car business, nothing more.
Microsoft has always said that Linux is great for running "infrastucture." Microsoft has always positioned itself as a maker of consumer products and has gone to great lengths to label Linux as an arcane OS that only a few high level geeks can figure out and that should only be used for very specific "technical" roles. In other words, it is great for servers but not the average desktop user.
This is just another attempt by Microsoft to say "Hey, Linux is awesome for servers, and only for servers. In fact it runs our servers." They are trying to subtly instill in every one's mind that Linux is not the OS you want for everyday use. They want the immediate response to someone who mentions Linux to be "We aren't talking about servers here." It is quite ingenious and sneaky.
The page loads for me in firefox, but all I get are some buttons and tabs with no text on them. I can't tell what they are for, without having to employ the "push it and see method." Perhaps that is what the submitter is referring to.
Manager: "Vincent, we are going to have to let you go." Vincent: "What for!?" Manager: "Well apparently you were rude to a customer and wouldn't let them cancel their account." Vincent: "Right that is standard operating procedure. On page 45 of the employee handbook, it states......." Manager: "Look, there is no need to get all defensive about this. You were a good employee. We wish you all the best in your job search." Vincent: "But you told me to do that! Is this not a video recording of you telling me to, and I quote "Don't let anyone cancel, period."" Manager: "Well, yes. But that was before the public got wind of this. You see Vincent, in war you have generals and you have privates. You are a private. You have to be willing to sacrifice yourself for the general. That's me." Vincent: "This is absurd. I did the job as you requested and you are firing me?" Manager: "Yes. We are happy with your work, you were a good employee. Sad to see you go." Vincent: "WTF?"
"It's motivating the middle managers, teaching them a new way of doing work."
For hundreds of years, America has done just fine with people getting up at a certain time each day, and gathering at a particular place to do work as a group. I am tired of these new-age hippies with their "let's redefine work" attitude. We don't need to be taught a "new way of doing work."
If telecommuting was such a great idea, productivity would be up, and every company would be rushing to send their workers home. At best, telecommuting is only as good as being in the office, and at worst, it is less productive. In no way shape or form, is it "better" than being in the office. (Better for an employee who doesn't want to come into work, sure. Not better for the company as a whole.) Telecommuting is good in a some situations, like when your child is sick and you need to stay home that day. However, it is not an everday solution.
Why do people seem intent on shoving telecommuting down our throats as the greatest way of working? It does not increase productivity. It does not save costs. It does not lead to lower stress and thus higher profits. It just doesn't work that way. It is hard to get work done when Steve isn't responding to your emails. However, if you were in the same building as he is, you could go finding him in accounting flirting with the new receptionist and get your work done faster. Google, Apple and any other "open minded" company you want to name all require you to come into a particular building at a specific time.
I am going to propose "non-work" as the next big working craze. Not working increases employee happiness, thus leading to better productivity, which leads to higher profits, obviously. A non-working environment leads to greater harmony among employees.
You don't think everyone who wants a higher education should be allowed to have one? That seems very elitist. I guess next, we will be deciding who gets to eat steak and who only gets bread and water.
The thing that makes the US great is that we give education to all who seek it. Education is not reserved for a select few, which would immediately breed a caste of the "chosen." Even if a person is not mentally worthy of a higher education, I say the fact that they want one is proof enough of their worthiness.
I partially understand what you are saying, and yes, there should be a seperation between the average, and the higher than average. The smartest people get to go to Harvard, Yale and MIT. The average get to chose from any number of local universities or community colleges. But everyone should get an opportunity to learn. It is a basic fundamental of democracy and helps bridge the gap between races, classes, genders and religions.
In China, they seem to be saying that if you can't get into Harvard, Yale or MIT, then you get no education what so ever. That is just simply wrong.
Similar laws in other states have been struct down as unconstitutional. The Governor of Louisianna knows this one will be, but preceeded with it anyway for the political gain. She is being irresponsible with the taxpayers money.
Put all those features into a computer and you essentially have an XBox360-ish looking device. We have known for several years that most of the console game companies want to market their consoles as home computers, but have always been squashed by real computers.
Instead of making a console system into a PC, Microsoft seems to want to turn the PC into a console. They are quite crafty. If you can't beat the PC market with a console, you just sabatoge the PC market.
Slashdot Mirror
To me the concept is exactly the same as a cop chasing a criminal who has run into a department store. The officer runs in and starts looking at every face until he finds the criminal. Do we get upset at the officer and get up in his face about looking at us while he was trying to find the criminal?
Way to be open minded about.
You can not base your life around the next big career path. What if I were to tell you that I know of a career where you can train for 6 weeks and start earning 6 figures right away? Would you be interested? If so, then you are just out for money. Quit asking "How much can I make?" and start asking "What do I want to do?"
The truth is that every career path will lead to riches. You can get rich by being a janitor; starting out at some small company and then starting your own cleaning service after you have built up some experience. Contract out to a few office buildings, hire you a compent staff, and rake in the money. You can make money at any profession, you just have to work hard. There is no such thing as a magical career path. If you are looking for easy money, then sink all your money in the lottery.
Okay, we start out with 6 people, all in favor of a more open, democratic type of business. No one cares about the money, they just want to make a great product and treat everyone fair.
After a few years, they start to see success. Money starts coming in. One of the six starts to think that he is the reason for the success and the other 5 are riding his coat-tails. Everything up till this point has been pretty much his idea he belives and the others just worked to make it happen. So now he wants more money than the others. The guy who put the company together and got the ball rolling, feels that he should be compensated. It is "his" company after all. A third member does not like having to put in all the long hours like everyone else. Everyone else is single with no family life. However, he is married with two kids. Why should he have to work 10 hours a day? But he also feels that he should get paid the same, because even though he doesn't work as long, he works every bit as hard.
Now, someone has to make a decision on all these issues. Who makes the decision? The group can't come to a conclusion. Even if they did, there would still be people in the company who didn't agree with the decision (A majority vote will always leave the minority angry.). So now you have some guys getting what they want, and some not. That sounds just like every single company out there, regardless of how it is run. At the end of the day, we are all human. No matter how much candy coating we do, life is not a fairy tale where people all magically get along and never disagree. Look at any rock band and you will see case after case of falling outs among "equals." At the end of the day, human nature is to take control and be greedy.
I agree, it won't break Apple, and Jobs shouldn't lose his job unless the people involved start showing up dead. Otherwise, claiming Jobs' days are numbered is ludicrous.
I agree; any comparison to Enron may be way off base in this matter. What I find interesting though, is the quick "rush" to defend Jobs and Apple as a whole. We don't know the facts yet. When Enron's problems first started to creep out into the light, they tried to downplay it as nothing more than a "correction."
I just see a dual standard. Had this been Gates and Microsoft, everyone would be calling for an SEC investigation and there would be predictions that Gates would wind up in prison. Let's just all try to be fair. If Jobs did something wrong, he needs to admit it, take his punishment and we can move on. However, let's don't pretend this is nothing more than a miss-placed $5 bill. (My comments are not directed at you personally, but at the forum in general.)
I am sure Ken Lay would have agreed with you. Does this mean that you find no guilt with Ken Lay?
This keeps getting repeated. "Old way is inferior to the new way." With the new way always being a more laid back, less money oriented approach.
I have news for that will just shock the world. Companies like Google and Apple are run just like every other company. People are hired for what they can do, and are let go for not living up to their potential. CEOs do what makes them more money. The only difference, is the that "new way" hides their intent behind an "employee friendly facade." How can Apple be part of the new way when Jobs is notorious for being the typical power hungry boss who will ridicule you in front of your coworkers? How is that the "new way"?
Google and Apple are not some awesome place where everyone just relaxes all day being "creative" and yet somehow still make money. At both companies, goals are set and if they are met people get in trouble or even fired. Just like at every other company. These companies also live and die by their stock value. Who was that bough an oversized company jet and decided to refit it? Was that some greedy boss at Bellsouth or Enron? Nope, it was the good natured guys at Google who don't care about money, right?
I just want to make it clear, I am not calling those who oppose religion, crazy. They may very well have a valid viewpoint. My viewpoint is that religion has an inherent positive nature. Trying to get someone to cut their ties to that is destructive. The way I see it, there are people out there trying to actively destroy organized religion. The posts I have read on this board seem to back that up.
It isn't really about the tax or the church vs. state issue. It is the non-religious crowd wanting to destroy organized religion. I find that to be wrong. True, churches can go overboard sometimes in recruiting new members, although I have never been approached by anyone to join their church. If we want to fight overly agressive recruitment by the church, we don't do that by being overly agressive in getting people to abandon church.
I just find it wrong to get people to abandon something that makes them happy and may give them meaning in their lives, just because a group out there doesn't like it. The church may try to shove their viewpoints down everyone's throat, but so is the non-religious crowd. That isn't really a good example to set.
This article smacks of anti-religious propaganda. FTA, it is stated that the main reason people are leaving is to avoid taxes. This isn't some great coup for the anti-religious crowd. I can support the seperation of church and state. But that isn't what is going on here. People aren't being encouraged to seperate the two, they are being encouraged to abandon religion all together. What are the numbers of new enrollment in other religions besides the state run religion, in Finland? I am just saying that if your desire is to seperate church and state, then create a movement to seperate the two. Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.
The only reason I can think of for a mish-mash of programming language is that you want to be the only person around who can figure it out. I have seen it done quite often in the IT industry. I personally don't agree with it, but it can be a very effective tool for making sure that you don't visit the unemployment office too often.
If that is the case, then mix in everything that you can possibly think of. XML, PHP, Perl, put in some VBScript, maybe even javascript. Learn some Flash and throw that in as well, for some video or splash screen or something. Doesn't really matter what you use it for. If you are using a database backend, and chances are good that you are, don't just use one database. Use a variety of database programs, each with one table. That way you can make tons of database connections in the code and they will all look different. It will leave them guessing for years why you did it that way. (People will usually assume that you had a reason for doing it that way, even if they can't figure out why.) Just as long as the next guy to try and work on it can't figure it out. That way, you can sit by the phone and wait for it to ring.
Now of course, if you are just trying to make an efficient streamlined program, then I would pick PERL as the language and go from there. You may find that PERL doesn't meet all your needs, and you can add in things as needed, but just keep it small. Oh, and don't forget to document everything. Chances are, that unless it is an overly easy application, you aren't going to remember everything.
Panic attacks can be treated with medication. There is no shame in it. Also, you could be showing signs of fatigue. College can wear people out. Maybe your body is getting exhausted, which is triggering the panic attacks and not the test. The test is just the final straw, as your body strains to recall everything.
Either way, go see a doctor. The panic attacks could be a sign of a vitamin deficiency, not enough sleep, or any number of other ailments.
I agree with the judges regardless of who the person actually was. Patents should not protect con-artists. What keeps the person from marketing their amazing "Egg that can stand on it's head" to millions of young kids? It would be a total rip-off of the consumer. The same as me selling a plant that talks, as long as you go buy a talking parrott and put it on top of the plant.
The person in the story seems more like a jester or a street performer, with his riddles. It is comical, but not patenable. Can I patent newspapers because no one can guess what is "black and white and read all over."? Just because the judges weren't able to answer the riddle off the top of their head, doesn't mean it wasn't obvious. Breaking the egg takes no special talent and didn't involve any research or deep thought. Can I patent a method for fixing your car by selling it and buying another? Viola, it is fixed!!
Patents should encourage true academic research and scientific experiments. Not someone's ability to trick others.
Wait, I won't be able to patent stupidly obvious things anymore? Oh no!!! I might have to actually get a job and make a real living. This can not stand! Time for me to sell my library of patents for turning on a light, sitting in a chair, making cigarettes, etc.
I did use Windows 3.1. I also used Windows 95, 98, ME and Windows XP. I just recently tried the public beta of Vista. Now, I am a long time Windows user and I can admit that Vista is crap. It is nothing more than a graphical update that comes with a steep price in terms of hardware. It is nothing more than an attempt to scratch the back of the hardware industry by requiring people to either upgrade or buy all new computers. (Which I believe Windows will hope persuade PC manufacturers to abanadon any plans with Linux.)
Sadly, it will still sell millions of copies and be a huge money maker for Microsoft. Why? Because all those Windows users are not going to convert to something else, which leaves them to either update or get stuck in the past. The entire computer industry has done a marvelous job of convincing people that they must upgrade at the drop of the hat, which they will.
It really is sad though, that Vista is absolutely nothing substantial. They could have just taken 6 months, and 1/10th of the cost to put a new graphic look ontop of XP, and called it a day.
I read an article a long time ago with someone from Microsoft, I believe it was one of their marketing directors. (Some title like "Chief Technology Director" or something like that comes to mind.) He runs two computers, one with Linux and one with Windows. The guy stated multiple times about how Linux was pretty good for servers. (I will have to dig to find the article.)
Sure, MS makes a server product. I never said they didn't. But it seems to me that MS doesn't mind losing server market shar to Linux if they can at the same time pigeon-hole it as just a server OS. The home and business desktop market for Windows is so huge, I don't think they would mind burying their competition by giving them a certain market.
If you are the most successful car dealership in town, you might let a new upstart dealership take the used car business from you, because you make so much on new cars. Once the competition has the used car business locked up, you can pigen hole them as just a used car business, nothing more.
Microsoft has always said that Linux is great for running "infrastucture." Microsoft has always positioned itself as a maker of consumer products and has gone to great lengths to label Linux as an arcane OS that only a few high level geeks can figure out and that should only be used for very specific "technical" roles. In other words, it is great for servers but not the average desktop user.
This is just another attempt by Microsoft to say "Hey, Linux is awesome for servers, and only for servers. In fact it runs our servers." They are trying to subtly instill in every one's mind that Linux is not the OS you want for everyday use. They want the immediate response to someone who mentions Linux to be "We aren't talking about servers here." It is quite ingenious and sneaky.
The page loads for me in firefox, but all I get are some buttons and tabs with no text on them. I can't tell what they are for, without having to employ the "push it and see method." Perhaps that is what the submitter is referring to.
Manager: "Vincent, we are going to have to let you go."
Vincent: "What for!?"
Manager: "Well apparently you were rude to a customer and wouldn't let them cancel their account."
Vincent: "Right that is standard operating procedure. On page 45 of the employee handbook, it states......."
Manager: "Look, there is no need to get all defensive about this. You were a good employee. We wish you all the best in your job search."
Vincent: "But you told me to do that! Is this not a video recording of you telling me to, and I quote "Don't let anyone cancel, period.""
Manager: "Well, yes. But that was before the public got wind of this. You see Vincent, in war you have generals and you have privates. You are a private. You have to be willing to sacrifice yourself for the general. That's me."
Vincent: "This is absurd. I did the job as you requested and you are firing me?"
Manager: "Yes. We are happy with your work, you were a good employee. Sad to see you go."
Vincent: "WTF?"
Wow, man. You should like, be in charge of like the world and stuff.
"It's motivating the middle managers, teaching them a new way of doing work."
For hundreds of years, America has done just fine with people getting up at a certain time each day, and gathering at a particular place to do work as a group. I am tired of these new-age hippies with their "let's redefine work" attitude. We don't need to be taught a "new way of doing work."
If telecommuting was such a great idea, productivity would be up, and every company would be rushing to send their workers home. At best, telecommuting is only as good as being in the office, and at worst, it is less productive. In no way shape or form, is it "better" than being in the office. (Better for an employee who doesn't want to come into work, sure. Not better for the company as a whole.) Telecommuting is good in a some situations, like when your child is sick and you need to stay home that day. However, it is not an everday solution.
Why do people seem intent on shoving telecommuting down our throats as the greatest way of working? It does not increase productivity. It does not save costs. It does not lead to lower stress and thus higher profits. It just doesn't work that way. It is hard to get work done when Steve isn't responding to your emails. However, if you were in the same building as he is, you could go finding him in accounting flirting with the new receptionist and get your work done faster. Google, Apple and any other "open minded" company you want to name all require you to come into a particular building at a specific time.
I am going to propose "non-work" as the next big working craze. Not working increases employee happiness, thus leading to better productivity, which leads to higher profits, obviously. A non-working environment leads to greater harmony among employees.
You don't think everyone who wants a higher education should be allowed to have one? That seems very elitist. I guess next, we will be deciding who gets to eat steak and who only gets bread and water.
The thing that makes the US great is that we give education to all who seek it. Education is not reserved for a select few, which would immediately breed a caste of the "chosen." Even if a person is not mentally worthy of a higher education, I say the fact that they want one is proof enough of their worthiness.
I partially understand what you are saying, and yes, there should be a seperation between the average, and the higher than average. The smartest people get to go to Harvard, Yale and MIT. The average get to chose from any number of local universities or community colleges. But everyone should get an opportunity to learn. It is a basic fundamental of democracy and helps bridge the gap between races, classes, genders and religions.
In China, they seem to be saying that if you can't get into Harvard, Yale or MIT, then you get no education what so ever. That is just simply wrong.
.......and just kill the astronauts here on the ground. Why spend billions just to kill them in space?
Similar laws in other states have been struct down as unconstitutional. The Governor of Louisianna knows this one will be, but preceeded with it anyway for the political gain. She is being irresponsible with the taxpayers money.
Put all those features into a computer and you essentially have an XBox360-ish looking device. We have known for several years that most of the console game companies want to market their consoles as home computers, but have always been squashed by real computers.
Instead of making a console system into a PC, Microsoft seems to want to turn the PC into a console. They are quite crafty. If you can't beat the PC market with a console, you just sabatoge the PC market.