The study is overlooking the fact that sometimes using video games as a diversion from real life can be a savior to children. I grew up in a poor home in a terrible small town, and I used video games to distract myself from the fact that my home life sucked and 95% of the people I socialized with were cretins.
Looking back I am so thankful that I chose the route of studying, playing sports and video games rather than go the route of most everybody else, which was to drink heavily, smoke meth, and get knocked up. Yeah, it was escapism and it wasn't the healthiest way to go about it, but it helped and I am forever grateful to my PSX for getting me through some tough times.
I definitely was socially inept in my late teens and early 20's and had some pretty severe growing pains that wouldn't have happened if I was more extroverted in high school. But if I was more extroverted in high school that would have been a problem all its own because a quality social group simply didn't exist where I lived.
want to know why we have not gone nuclear across the nation.
I know it was a rhetorical question, but it's really simple: fear and ignorance. When a nuclear plant fails it's on the front page of every newspaper in the world for months, and a significant percentage of our population doesn't even climate change is happening.
It's not lack of talent, it's just aesthetics and marketing. Look at guys like Robert Elswit and Roger Deakins. They're still doing work that rivals anything in old movies, but if you put a film out with long takes and a deliberate pace everyone complains that it's "slow" and automatically gets put in the arthouse category. These films just don't sell that well anymore.
I'm very intrigued to see what style Elswit brings to the new Bourne movie. I enjoyed the last one on TV, but I sat too close to the screen when I saw it in the theatre and it made me sick.
You're not even listening to what I'm saying. You're attacking a red-herring as opposed to what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying that the US doesn't engage in imperialist actions. I'm saying that because the rest of the developed world uses the US as the defacto peacekeeping power in the world, a lot of the blame gets pushed onto us while the rest of the world gets to double-talk their asses off and engage in the same imperialist actions while criticizing US imperialism.
For example, in Libya last year, that military action would not have been possible without the US Air Force. Nobody else has the technical capabilities to do what we did. France and Italy, in order to protect and promote their own imperialist agendas in N. Africa would have to massively increase their military spending. But that would never fly politically, so they get us to do the dirty work and then reap the benefits, all while the politicians get to talk down on US imperialism and save face with their voters. Or Germany with the US air defenses. They may criticize US military power, but at the same time their politicians are not exactly beating down the door to get us to leave and have to foot the bill for their own defense.
And really? Our military actions in Serbia, WW2, Korea, and WW1 didn't promote freedom and democracy? That's just laughable. So the government of South Korea wasn't perfect. Which would you rather live in, South Korea in the 70's and 80's or North Korea? Germany under Nazi and Soviet governments, or Germany under US/NATO protection?
And the US absolutely *did not* play both sides against each other in WW2. I have no idea where you would get that idea. Even when we were neutral we sided with the allies. Yes, lend-lease was largely self-serving, but it's not like we didn't pick a side. And try and ask a Korean, Chinese, or Filipino citizen who lived through WW2 whether they are happy that the US entered WW2 or whether they would have been happier living under Japanese occupation. You're being ridiculous.
What was the last time anyone other than thieves and would-be robber barons hoping to profit from misery of their fellows actually asked you to show up and blow their country to smithereens in the name of "saving" it?
Libya last year. Serbia before, Kuwait, Korea, WW2, WW1, the list goes on. I think the truth lies somewhere in between your post and the GP. Some US military actions are deplorable and indefensible, but some of them are legitimate attempts to help defend freedom and democracy. Obviously GP poster's attitude is idiotic, but it is also true that the developed world uses the US military do do a lot of its own dirty work and pushes much of the responsibility for global security onto the US.
And then they get to play both sides. They get to use the US army as a proxy for their own defense or imperialist goals, and they also get to play the anti-American and pacifist card at home. Overall, most of the developed world (at least at the governmental level) is pretty satisfied with letting the US be world police.
US = Imperialist and Everyone Else = Innocent Victims is a naive way of viewing the problem.
I wouldn't call a system where a large part of the generated value is siphoned off as profit for the capitalist class by any means efficient, that's a myth perpetuated by the media. An efficient system would be one where the surplus value benefit the workers themselves.
But it is efficient! And it's not just efficient at generating wealth for the capitalists. It's also more efficient at generating wealth for the majority of people. The fact of the matter is that regular, working class people are far better off materially in modern capitalist societies than they ever were under communist or strict socialist governments. Especially with a strong welfare system in place to prevent the creation of inescapable poverty. But that's not a failing of socialism *necessarily*, just a failing of centrally planned economies.
That's the biggest mistake Marx made. It's not that he was wrong necessarily about where the world was headed or what could be done to fix it. It's that he drastically underestimated the ability of the capitalist system to generate wealth and promote technological progress.
And I don't think you can place all or even most of the blame on capitalist meddling for the failures of socialist states. The USSR did not fall because of the West. It fell because it had a poor economy and corrupt leaders.
I don't think it's really that difficult to implement an actual socialist system if it wasn't for the sometimes violent opposition from entrenched capitalists and the capitalist control over the media and thus public agenda. These are problems that need addressing before any real change can come about.
That's what I meant:)
Another reason why it's difficult is that socialism has never been shown to approach anything near the efficiency of the capitalist system. The reason why capitalism succeeded over socialism in the 20th century is because it produces wealth in far greater amounts than any socialist system that was implemented (and I mean wealth in a more neutral economic sense, not necessarily just monetary profit). That's why the compromise between socialism and capitalism that has happened in the developed world has been so successful. Most of the benefits of both systems while minimizing the negatives (to various degrees of success depending on the country).
It's not like you *couldn't* have a pure socialist system that produces that type of wealth, it's just never been accomplished yet, and even the most progressive governments tend to stick with what works. It's hard to convince people to make drastic changes when there are extraordinarily powerful interests who stand to lose a great deal *and* most people are generally doing pretty well.
I meant it more that a "true" socialist system would be remarkably difficult to implement properly, and that the compromise between socialists and capitalist in Northern Europe is realistically about as good as you can get. The workers don't control production, but they do get paid very well for the most part and have excellent public services, education, health care, etc. and a remarkably responsive democratic government. Coming from an American perspective where you get called a communist if you think that the government should spend more on health care and education than they do on the military, it seems like an extremely successful socialist system.
I hate how ambiguous the term socialist is. I'm politically what would probably be called a center-right social democrat in Europe (that's probably why you disagree with me). But in the US my political views are so left-wing they are almost completely unrepresented in the federal government.
I would argue that the Northern European and Scandinavian countries are successful socialist states. Obviously they compromised a lot with the capitalists and aren't anywhere near to being a pure Marxist state, but realistically that's pretty much the ideal outcome for socialism.
Yup. And many peoples' initial response to a statement like that is to discount that argument or attribute the higher percentage of African-Americans in prison to other factors. Surely it can't be that bad, right? But it's actually demonstrably true that drug prohibition targets African-Americans disproportionately.
If you look at the arrest rate, prosecution rate, and conviction rate they are all higher for blacks. That is, a higher percentage of black drug users and dealers are arrested, a higher percentage of those that are arrested are prosecuted, and a higher percentage of those that are prosecuted are convicted. On top of that, blacks that are convicted of drug possession or distribution get significantly longer sentences on average. Pretty messed up.
As for Rush, if you have (5-1 against) actually listened to all of what he said it wasn't that extreme. When someone enters the political arena they are subject to being ripped on by entertainer/commenters on the arena. Ms. Fluke is at least a principle, not the preteen daughter of one that pussies like Bill Mahar and Letterman prefer attacking. If ya can't rip on the stupid comments of a political activist who is on the way to a law degree from a major university, something is seriously wrong. And what the woman said was pretty damned stupid even in the age of idiocy we are living in. And yes, I'll go there: If the crazy girl is really going through a thousand dollars a year in contraceptives she has to be f*cking like a porn star. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I'd call her a slut too but that would be an insult to sluts. I mean, we all know hippie chicks are easy, but G*ddamn! Or she is a liar bearing false witness as a cheap political stunt, which is closer to the truth.
Really, you *don't* think Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut and a whore for using contraceptives *isn't* extreme? What planet do you live on?
So what's the rational argument against what she said? What exactly did she say that was stupid? I would like to hear that instead of some mudslinging and name-calling, because what you're saying doesn't make any sense. $1000/year comes out to $80/month. Not ridiculous at all depending on what sort of contraceptives you're using. I'm guessing you've never paid for birth control. Or is it that every woman that uses birth control is a slut? That's a lovely attitude to have towards women. Good luck with that.
99% of women in this country use contraceptives. It says nothing about how many people you are having sex with. Married women used contraceptives. It doesn't even mean that you're having sex. Women that are not sexually active sometimes use contraceptives to treat medical conditions.
You're not old-fashioned, you're just an asshole. Hopefully the women in your life don't know about your opinions on this subject. Actually, I hope they do, that way you can assure yourself of never getting laid again. And then you can get even more pissed off at all the people that do and post more nonsensical rants on slashdot.
Holy persecution complex, Batman! Saying that lefties get away with saying vile things and get to issue an apology and move on, while often true, certainly can be said about those on the right as well. Rush Limbaugh, for example, says incredibly vile and hateful things on a regular basis and only gets mild rebuke from the mainstream media. You can point out a million other examples of right-wingers saying uniformed, hateful things and having no repercussions (as it should be for the most part, IMHO).
Beyond that, your ideas that everyone on the left refuses to have frank and honest discussion about race or that everyone who supports what is usually called "affirmative action" believes that black people are inferior are not only specious, they're completely condescending. Not that "your side" of the argument doesn't have constructive arguments to make, but can you please lay off the vitriol? You're acting entirely hypocritical by expecting a respectful, rational response for people that say controversial things that you agree with while at the same time using such patronizing language about those that don't. Respect gets respect. Or do you really believe that liberals have no logical, rational arguments for their beliefs?
The entire tone of your response reeks of partisanship. How about we stop painting in such broad strokes and deal with discrete cases in a respectful and rational way? There's enough strength in your arguments alone if you would lay off the condescension. You don't have to strap a cross on your back to make a point. It makes you sound like an imbecile.
Bullshit! I went to high school near large natural gas deposits, and a certain multinational energy company was successfully sued for poisoning local wells due to lax standards with their waste water containment. Before that I lived in Northern Nevada, where a gold mine leaked a shitload (very technical term) of arsenic into a local creek because their leech pad was leaking, and it was a known problem that they just ignored until they were caught.
It's not exactly a conspiracy theory to say that multinationals play loose and fast with regulations. It's called paying attention. Remember this? How about this? Even it's a fact that mom-and-pop operations are more likely to mess up the multinationals do so constantly as well, and the scale of their mistakes tends to be a lot more dramatic to say the least.
Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis is a fantastic read. One of the most clever, intellectually and spiritually engaging stories you're ever likely to read. It covers the nature of morality and temptation from the perspective of demons. Best Christian book ever written. Everyone should read it (I'm an atheist if that matters).
Second all of these, but especially The History of the Making of the Atomic Bomb. It also subs as a history of physics from the late 19th century to 1945. Excellent read.
I'm currently going to a pretty cheap state school studying hard sciences. When I graduate, I will be $25k in debt and likely will have to go to grad school in order to find a job in my field. So all told I'll probably end up with at least $40k in student loan debt. And I will have to find a pretty damn good job in an increasingly competitive job market in order to pay off all that debt relatively quickly (God forbid I should be able to buy a house or start a family before I turn 35). And I'm doing it the "right" way. I'm studying a technical field and being smart with my money (I took most of my gen eds at community college, work 40 hour weeks, and I follow a pretty good budget).
What about the people that don't want to be scientists? That don't want to be engineers or finance majors? They still deserve a quality education. Should we tell them to not study history? Should we tell them to not study literature? We should just tell them to bite the bullet and bust their asses in a field they aren't passionate about?
There is no such thing as a useless degree. College is not supposed to be a career factory. But how many quality schools are out there where you can earn a bachelors without paying over $25k in tuition? I'm sure there are a few, but if you aren't fortunate to have rich parents you're most likely going to be stuck with quite a bit of debt no matter where you go to school or what you study.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't have teachers? We shouldn't have social workers? We shouldn't have artists? We shouldn't have musicians? We shouldn't have writers? I know plenty of people of people who are getting "useless" degrees and they are well aware of the fact that it will not lead them to a lucrative career. But they still deserve to get a quality education at a price that won't leave them financially crippled well into their 30s.
Unemployment rates are a serious problem, particularly among the young. The rising cost of college tuition is a serious problem. You're just being a hyperbolic, condescending dick.
I was a Wells Fargo customer for about five years starting when I got my first job in high school. I applied for a $500 credit card my last year in college and they denied me. Granted, I didn't have much credit history, but what I did have was good. No outstanding or revolving debt. I had a stable but modest income. And they couldn't give me a $500 credit card? OK, see you later Wells Fargo.
I ended up getting a Capital One card right after that. They gave me a $500 credit limit with a crappy rate, but at least it gave me the chance to build some credit. Two years later, they upped my rate 7% and dropped my credit limit $200 for absolutely no reason. OK, see you later CapitalOne.
Since I've been with my credit union I've never had a problem with anything I needed. I have a credit card with them and they've never jerked me around on my rate or limit. I bought a used car with no collateral and no money down, and they gave me an extremely good rate. I wanted a $500 personal loan to buy a new computer after my motherboard died and all I did was walk into the bank and ask for it. No games, about an hour later I had a check in my hand.
True, but my post was about how it seems pretty clear that they're going to push the Mac App store to be more like the iOS App Store. It makes sense from a business perspective. If they can control the distribution of software on OSX the same way they do on iOS they'll bump their profits up even more.
Leaking from retaining pools probably makes the most sense, but I can't remember the specifics. There was definitely a lot of complaints about frakking but I can't tell just from memory how legitimate that was, or even if it was every resolved conclusively. I wish I could find the damn articles online, so I could give you a more specific answer. It was a pretty big deal locally and Encana ended up paying out some small settlements.
Thanks for the in depth response though.
Another just general sort of comment, is that you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that just because it isn't in the oil companies best interest to have shoddy practices and lax standards doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know in my small town whenever the gas industry was booming they would be laying down new wells as fast as they possibly could, and some of the folks they hired were slightly less than competent, educated individuals. And it's pretty easy for subcontractors to do poor work and still stay in business, at least during the boom years. A lot of terrible stuff gets overlooked because everybody's working 70+ hour weeks to get new wells up and running.
About a decade ago when I was living in Garfield County, CO, drilling for natural gas poisoned the wells of a bunch of people that lived in the hills nearby. I'm curious if you can explain that as I can't find any sources online that explain how it happened. And it wasn't a spill or negligence or anything, just chemicals from the drilling process leaking into the local water supplies..
I'm not being confrontational or anything, I'm just legitimately curious because you seem to have some knowledge on the subject. And it's difficult for me to sort out the data and form my own opinion. I know environmentalists often overreact and simplify the arguments, but I've also worked for mines and drilling outfits and I know they pretty much always break as many regulatory rules as possible. And environmental regulation is pretty lax in a lot of ways even if they follow the rules.
So what's the explanation for the instances of natural gas drilling poisoning local water supplies? Because it definitely does happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The study is overlooking the fact that sometimes using video games as a diversion from real life can be a savior to children. I grew up in a poor home in a terrible small town, and I used video games to distract myself from the fact that my home life sucked and 95% of the people I socialized with were cretins.
Looking back I am so thankful that I chose the route of studying, playing sports and video games rather than go the route of most everybody else, which was to drink heavily, smoke meth, and get knocked up. Yeah, it was escapism and it wasn't the healthiest way to go about it, but it helped and I am forever grateful to my PSX for getting me through some tough times.
I definitely was socially inept in my late teens and early 20's and had some pretty severe growing pains that wouldn't have happened if I was more extroverted in high school. But if I was more extroverted in high school that would have been a problem all its own because a quality social group simply didn't exist where I lived.
I know it was a rhetorical question, but it's really simple: fear and ignorance. When a nuclear plant fails it's on the front page of every newspaper in the world for months, and a significant percentage of our population doesn't even climate change is happening.
Do you have any idea how much oil it takes to produce a kilo of beef?
Yes.
It's even more direct than that.Pacific Railroad Acts
It's not lack of talent, it's just aesthetics and marketing. Look at guys like Robert Elswit and Roger Deakins. They're still doing work that rivals anything in old movies, but if you put a film out with long takes and a deliberate pace everyone complains that it's "slow" and automatically gets put in the arthouse category. These films just don't sell that well anymore.
I'm very intrigued to see what style Elswit brings to the new Bourne movie. I enjoyed the last one on TV, but I sat too close to the screen when I saw it in the theatre and it made me sick.
You're not even listening to what I'm saying. You're attacking a red-herring as opposed to what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying that the US doesn't engage in imperialist actions. I'm saying that because the rest of the developed world uses the US as the defacto peacekeeping power in the world, a lot of the blame gets pushed onto us while the rest of the world gets to double-talk their asses off and engage in the same imperialist actions while criticizing US imperialism.
For example, in Libya last year, that military action would not have been possible without the US Air Force. Nobody else has the technical capabilities to do what we did. France and Italy, in order to protect and promote their own imperialist agendas in N. Africa would have to massively increase their military spending. But that would never fly politically, so they get us to do the dirty work and then reap the benefits, all while the politicians get to talk down on US imperialism and save face with their voters. Or Germany with the US air defenses. They may criticize US military power, but at the same time their politicians are not exactly beating down the door to get us to leave and have to foot the bill for their own defense.
And really? Our military actions in Serbia, WW2, Korea, and WW1 didn't promote freedom and democracy? That's just laughable. So the government of South Korea wasn't perfect. Which would you rather live in, South Korea in the 70's and 80's or North Korea? Germany under Nazi and Soviet governments, or Germany under US/NATO protection?
And the US absolutely *did not* play both sides against each other in WW2. I have no idea where you would get that idea. Even when we were neutral we sided with the allies. Yes, lend-lease was largely self-serving, but it's not like we didn't pick a side. And try and ask a Korean, Chinese, or Filipino citizen who lived through WW2 whether they are happy that the US entered WW2 or whether they would have been happier living under Japanese occupation. You're being ridiculous.
Libya last year. Serbia before, Kuwait, Korea, WW2, WW1, the list goes on. I think the truth lies somewhere in between your post and the GP. Some US military actions are deplorable and indefensible, but some of them are legitimate attempts to help defend freedom and democracy. Obviously GP poster's attitude is idiotic, but it is also true that the developed world uses the US military do do a lot of its own dirty work and pushes much of the responsibility for global security onto the US.
And then they get to play both sides. They get to use the US army as a proxy for their own defense or imperialist goals, and they also get to play the anti-American and pacifist card at home. Overall, most of the developed world (at least at the governmental level) is pretty satisfied with letting the US be world police.
US = Imperialist and Everyone Else = Innocent Victims is a naive way of viewing the problem.
Citation needed.
But it is efficient! And it's not just efficient at generating wealth for the capitalists. It's also more efficient at generating wealth for the majority of people. The fact of the matter is that regular, working class people are far better off materially in modern capitalist societies than they ever were under communist or strict socialist governments. Especially with a strong welfare system in place to prevent the creation of inescapable poverty. But that's not a failing of socialism *necessarily*, just a failing of centrally planned economies.
That's the biggest mistake Marx made. It's not that he was wrong necessarily about where the world was headed or what could be done to fix it. It's that he drastically underestimated the ability of the capitalist system to generate wealth and promote technological progress.
And I don't think you can place all or even most of the blame on capitalist meddling for the failures of socialist states. The USSR did not fall because of the West. It fell because it had a poor economy and corrupt leaders.
That's what I meant :)
Another reason why it's difficult is that socialism has never been shown to approach anything near the efficiency of the capitalist system. The reason why capitalism succeeded over socialism in the 20th century is because it produces wealth in far greater amounts than any socialist system that was implemented (and I mean wealth in a more neutral economic sense, not necessarily just monetary profit). That's why the compromise between socialism and capitalism that has happened in the developed world has been so successful. Most of the benefits of both systems while minimizing the negatives (to various degrees of success depending on the country).
It's not like you *couldn't* have a pure socialist system that produces that type of wealth, it's just never been accomplished yet, and even the most progressive governments tend to stick with what works. It's hard to convince people to make drastic changes when there are extraordinarily powerful interests who stand to lose a great deal *and* most people are generally doing pretty well.
I meant it more that a "true" socialist system would be remarkably difficult to implement properly, and that the compromise between socialists and capitalist in Northern Europe is realistically about as good as you can get. The workers don't control production, but they do get paid very well for the most part and have excellent public services, education, health care, etc. and a remarkably responsive democratic government. Coming from an American perspective where you get called a communist if you think that the government should spend more on health care and education than they do on the military, it seems like an extremely successful socialist system.
I hate how ambiguous the term socialist is. I'm politically what would probably be called a center-right social democrat in Europe (that's probably why you disagree with me). But in the US my political views are so left-wing they are almost completely unrepresented in the federal government.
I would argue that the Northern European and Scandinavian countries are successful socialist states. Obviously they compromised a lot with the capitalists and aren't anywhere near to being a pure Marxist state, but realistically that's pretty much the ideal outcome for socialism.
Yup. And many peoples' initial response to a statement like that is to discount that argument or attribute the higher percentage of African-Americans in prison to other factors. Surely it can't be that bad, right? But it's actually demonstrably true that drug prohibition targets African-Americans disproportionately.
If you look at the arrest rate, prosecution rate, and conviction rate they are all higher for blacks. That is, a higher percentage of black drug users and dealers are arrested, a higher percentage of those that are arrested are prosecuted, and a higher percentage of those that are prosecuted are convicted. On top of that, blacks that are convicted of drug possession or distribution get significantly longer sentences on average. Pretty messed up.
Really, you *don't* think Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut and a whore for using contraceptives *isn't* extreme? What planet do you live on?
So what's the rational argument against what she said? What exactly did she say that was stupid? I would like to hear that instead of some mudslinging and name-calling, because what you're saying doesn't make any sense. $1000/year comes out to $80/month. Not ridiculous at all depending on what sort of contraceptives you're using. I'm guessing you've never paid for birth control. Or is it that every woman that uses birth control is a slut? That's a lovely attitude to have towards women. Good luck with that.
99% of women in this country use contraceptives. It says nothing about how many people you are having sex with. Married women used contraceptives. It doesn't even mean that you're having sex. Women that are not sexually active sometimes use contraceptives to treat medical conditions.
You're not old-fashioned, you're just an asshole. Hopefully the women in your life don't know about your opinions on this subject. Actually, I hope they do, that way you can assure yourself of never getting laid again. And then you can get even more pissed off at all the people that do and post more nonsensical rants on slashdot.
Holy persecution complex, Batman! Saying that lefties get away with saying vile things and get to issue an apology and move on, while often true, certainly can be said about those on the right as well. Rush Limbaugh, for example, says incredibly vile and hateful things on a regular basis and only gets mild rebuke from the mainstream media. You can point out a million other examples of right-wingers saying uniformed, hateful things and having no repercussions (as it should be for the most part, IMHO).
Beyond that, your ideas that everyone on the left refuses to have frank and honest discussion about race or that everyone who supports what is usually called "affirmative action" believes that black people are inferior are not only specious, they're completely condescending. Not that "your side" of the argument doesn't have constructive arguments to make, but can you please lay off the vitriol? You're acting entirely hypocritical by expecting a respectful, rational response for people that say controversial things that you agree with while at the same time using such patronizing language about those that don't. Respect gets respect. Or do you really believe that liberals have no logical, rational arguments for their beliefs?
The entire tone of your response reeks of partisanship. How about we stop painting in such broad strokes and deal with discrete cases in a respectful and rational way? There's enough strength in your arguments alone if you would lay off the condescension. You don't have to strap a cross on your back to make a point. It makes you sound like an imbecile.
Bullshit! I went to high school near large natural gas deposits, and a certain multinational energy company was successfully sued for poisoning local wells due to lax standards with their waste water containment. Before that I lived in Northern Nevada, where a gold mine leaked a shitload (very technical term) of arsenic into a local creek because their leech pad was leaking, and it was a known problem that they just ignored until they were caught.
It's not exactly a conspiracy theory to say that multinationals play loose and fast with regulations. It's called paying attention. Remember this? How about this? Even it's a fact that mom-and-pop operations are more likely to mess up the multinationals do so constantly as well, and the scale of their mistakes tends to be a lot more dramatic to say the least.
Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis is a fantastic read. One of the most clever, intellectually and spiritually engaging stories you're ever likely to read. It covers the nature of morality and temptation from the perspective of demons. Best Christian book ever written. Everyone should read it (I'm an atheist if that matters).
I second the Ayn Rand hate, but it's still a classic in the sense that it is extraordinarily influential. Just please, please, don't like it.
Second all of these, but especially The History of the Making of the Atomic Bomb. It also subs as a history of physics from the late 19th century to 1945. Excellent read.
I'm currently going to a pretty cheap state school studying hard sciences. When I graduate, I will be $25k in debt and likely will have to go to grad school in order to find a job in my field. So all told I'll probably end up with at least $40k in student loan debt. And I will have to find a pretty damn good job in an increasingly competitive job market in order to pay off all that debt relatively quickly (God forbid I should be able to buy a house or start a family before I turn 35). And I'm doing it the "right" way. I'm studying a technical field and being smart with my money (I took most of my gen eds at community college, work 40 hour weeks, and I follow a pretty good budget).
What about the people that don't want to be scientists? That don't want to be engineers or finance majors? They still deserve a quality education. Should we tell them to not study history? Should we tell them to not study literature? We should just tell them to bite the bullet and bust their asses in a field they aren't passionate about?
There is no such thing as a useless degree. College is not supposed to be a career factory. But how many quality schools are out there where you can earn a bachelors without paying over $25k in tuition? I'm sure there are a few, but if you aren't fortunate to have rich parents you're most likely going to be stuck with quite a bit of debt no matter where you go to school or what you study.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't have teachers? We shouldn't have social workers? We shouldn't have artists? We shouldn't have musicians? We shouldn't have writers? I know plenty of people of people who are getting "useless" degrees and they are well aware of the fact that it will not lead them to a lucrative career. But they still deserve to get a quality education at a price that won't leave them financially crippled well into their 30s.
Unemployment rates are a serious problem, particularly among the young. The rising cost of college tuition is a serious problem. You're just being a hyperbolic, condescending dick.
I was a Wells Fargo customer for about five years starting when I got my first job in high school. I applied for a $500 credit card my last year in college and they denied me. Granted, I didn't have much credit history, but what I did have was good. No outstanding or revolving debt. I had a stable but modest income. And they couldn't give me a $500 credit card? OK, see you later Wells Fargo.
I ended up getting a Capital One card right after that. They gave me a $500 credit limit with a crappy rate, but at least it gave me the chance to build some credit. Two years later, they upped my rate 7% and dropped my credit limit $200 for absolutely no reason. OK, see you later CapitalOne.
Since I've been with my credit union I've never had a problem with anything I needed. I have a credit card with them and they've never jerked me around on my rate or limit. I bought a used car with no collateral and no money down, and they gave me an extremely good rate. I wanted a $500 personal loan to buy a new computer after my motherboard died and all I did was walk into the bank and ask for it. No games, about an hour later I had a check in my hand.
There's no reason to put up with a crappy bank.
True, but my post was about how it seems pretty clear that they're going to push the Mac App store to be more like the iOS App Store. It makes sense from a business perspective. If they can control the distribution of software on OSX the same way they do on iOS they'll bump their profits up even more.
Leaking from retaining pools probably makes the most sense, but I can't remember the specifics. There was definitely a lot of complaints about frakking but I can't tell just from memory how legitimate that was, or even if it was every resolved conclusively. I wish I could find the damn articles online, so I could give you a more specific answer. It was a pretty big deal locally and Encana ended up paying out some small settlements.
Thanks for the in depth response though.
Another just general sort of comment, is that you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that just because it isn't in the oil companies best interest to have shoddy practices and lax standards doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know in my small town whenever the gas industry was booming they would be laying down new wells as fast as they possibly could, and some of the folks they hired were slightly less than competent, educated individuals. And it's pretty easy for subcontractors to do poor work and still stay in business, at least during the boom years. A lot of terrible stuff gets overlooked because everybody's working 70+ hour weeks to get new wells up and running.
About a decade ago when I was living in Garfield County, CO, drilling for natural gas poisoned the wells of a bunch of people that lived in the hills nearby. I'm curious if you can explain that as I can't find any sources online that explain how it happened. And it wasn't a spill or negligence or anything, just chemicals from the drilling process leaking into the local water supplies..
I'm not being confrontational or anything, I'm just legitimately curious because you seem to have some knowledge on the subject. And it's difficult for me to sort out the data and form my own opinion. I know environmentalists often overreact and simplify the arguments, but I've also worked for mines and drilling outfits and I know they pretty much always break as many regulatory rules as possible. And environmental regulation is pretty lax in a lot of ways even if they follow the rules.
So what's the explanation for the instances of natural gas drilling poisoning local water supplies? Because it definitely does happen.