Here's the problem: if you don't have *at least* a CS degree, almost NOBODY will even consider you. Period.
I can't count the number of absolutely simple positions I've seen on the big tech posting sites that threaten grievous bodily harm to applicants without PhDs in Math, Computer Science, and Basket Weaving. Plus 38,947,982 years of experience. I've applied for these jobs. I've gotten angry calls. You wouldn't believe how irate recruiters and HR people are if you don't meet their artificial (and often silly) prerequisites.
"it looks fun, and a hoot to travel with by air." Uh-huh. I'll write you in prison. I promise.
"the mouse is ergonomically shaped because the pistol grip alleviates stress on your carpal tunnel-ridden wrist." And it places stress on the last joints in your index finger. It also individualizes your index finger, which can lead to dystonia.
Now, given this, the question has to be asked: why anyone would still use it? Don't get me wrong, there are real advantages to Mach, notably for Apple who ship a number of multiprocessor machines. But the same support can be added to monokernals. Likewise Apple's version has support for soft realtime, which has also been added to monokernels. So in the end the Mac runs slower than it could, and I am hard pressed to find an upside.
Backward compatibility and prioritizing their work. NeXT chose Mach/BSD in the 80s and Apple decided not to rework the kernel and all existing system software for their updated OPENSTEP for the Mac.
What press was that? It may have happened, I just don't remember seeing anything other than on Slashdot. Were they talking about it on cable news networks, for instance?
The odd thing is that you can't protect liberty by making laws that take it away.
If the law will protect your liberty, it must remove the liberty of your neighbor to kill you. Government is always a balance between defending you and interfering with you. That's just the way it is.
Now as to this Real ID, I'm not sure it's legitimate for the Congress to tell the States how they must administer their internal affairs.
While I think you're on the right track, I'm not sure that there's a whole lot of profitability out there right now. We have so many cheap mineral resources here on Earth that an expensive extra-terrestrial mining operation makes no economic sense. Tourism is about the best we can do for the moment, I think.
When someone says that the cost to go to space is too expensive, I have to emphasize where the money goes to build the spacecraft. It's not like we take millions of dollar bills, smelt them into vehicles or stuff bills in the fuel tanks and set them afire.
Most likely, people who say this are arguing that the benefit is not worth the price.
That money goes to WORKERS who build the space vehicles and COMPANIES that make jobs. That's economically a Good Thing.
Er, yes. But the real argument is not about whether the money will be reinvested. It's a given that the money goes somewhere when the government spends it, just the same as it does when an individual spends it. The question is who will choose where these funds go. If the government decides, the money will almost certainly go to different places than if individuals decide separately. Then supply and demand kicks in and the number and type of goods and services available on the market begin to change.
The US was founded on state rights, hence "The United States of America". If you don't like a state's rules, move to another state.
Yes. I like to think of this as a "free market" of laws. Both Nationalists and Internationalists want a monopoly on legislative practice.
The federal government is heading toward "monoculturing" the US. Pretty soon we'll be "Former United States of America".
Yes. But it actually started in 1803 with Marbury vs. Madison. And every time we try to roll back some of the judicial dictatorship, some nitwit will say, "this is just right-wing, fascist, Fundamentalist Christian, [Insert list of half-understood and fully-misapplied adjectives here] ideology!"
Only if you infer that each and every American citizen and resident, legal or otherwise, is by definition a threat
C'mon. Check your hyperbole at the door.
citizen and resident, legal or otherwise
We elect our politicians, primarily, to protect the nation. Just letting people run across our border is unsafe and irresponsible.
And if that is the case exactly whose welfare are we defending?
This is actually a very good question. People often misuse or abuse the clause: "[P]ay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Also note that "United States" is plural. Many think of America as a monolithic nation-state but this is not the case. We are a union. The welfare is that of the individual states taken collectively.
We may end up seeing a return to the time when there are two kinds of (non-hobbyist) art: live performance and for-hire business-oriented work. Writers can write technical manuals and ad copy, and artists can design layout and provide illustrations for the manuals. The rest will be live poetry readings and music. It could be like ancient Greece, complete with itinerant (read: homeless) poets, actors, and musicians. At least Britney Spears would be gone.
I think, though, that the entrepreneurial spirit will take over and somebody will find ways to make money from the arts. Actually, I was kind of hoping that you had some insights I could pirat^H^H^H^H^Hcopy and become the next evil content mogul.:-)
The government taking that hypothetical $1500 is avoidable - many people fail to pay their taxes every year. Personally, I'm too likely to get caught, and don't relish the idea of languishing in prison, so I pay every year.
Well, it's not hypothetical: that's how much of my $14k they took.:-) But yes, many people don't pay taxes. A lot of them just take advantage of one of the many thousands of pages of tax code we have.
This does not reduce my voice nor objections to what those elected boneheads choose to spend that money on when it is not where I would wish it spent
It's not even just that. They're spending our money on things for which they have no legal right. The original idea was that the people were sovereign (quite literally, that means we are the King). Because we're busy and don't have a lot of time, we choose people to do some of the work of government for us. But we carefully decided what the limits of their authority would be. That's in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 ("Enumerated Powers").
Almost everything Congress does is outside the bounds of what we've given them permission to do. If a King's delegates did that, how long would their heads stay firmly planted on their shoulders? Like you, I'm not violent, and I don't like the idea of an overthrow of government. Even a bad government is better than none at all. But what resemblence does this government bear to the one we signed up for?
And what choices do we have? I voted for Bush because Kerry was a self-absorbed 60s radical who thinks America is the cause of all evil in the world. But Bush is not really dedicated to cutting the illegal spending. And our Congress isn't either, largely thanks to the massive will of the Buraeucracy and the pressure from government employee unions. I suppose it will end when enough people realize what's going on and decide that it's wrong.
Perhaps the authors, and other creators, would be better off getting paid up front for the work they do in the process of creation - just like 99% of the rest of the working world.
If you can come up with a good viable way of doing this, 99% of the authors, artists, and musicians will jump on it. The pay-for-publication scheme mostly benefits the publishers (which is not entirely unreasonable, since they do a lot of work to get your ideas on store shelves).
If I want to support the good work a group is doing, I shall donate to that group - do not legislate my choices for me based on what a slim majority may wish to support.
Just a little test. I want to give $1000.00 of my meager $14,000.00 / year paycheck to help the poor. The government wants to take $1500.00 of my paycheck, give $1425.00 to welfare adminstrators and $75.00 to people who actually need help. Which one is better? What if I don't think those welfare administrators actually deserve as much help as the poor? What if it's a moral issue for me?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't count the number of absolutely simple positions I've seen on the big tech posting sites that threaten grievous bodily harm to applicants without PhDs in Math, Computer Science, and Basket Weaving. Plus 38,947,982 years of experience. I've applied for these jobs. I've gotten angry calls. You wouldn't believe how irate recruiters and HR people are if you don't meet their artificial (and often silly) prerequisites.
You can go over to the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground and read the same overwrought drivel that MoDo spews.
You're reading my mind here. What is *wrong* with this man, anyway?
Backward compatibility and prioritizing their work. NeXT chose Mach/BSD in the 80s and Apple decided not to rework the kernel and all existing system software for their updated OPENSTEP for the Mac.
My suggestion is to look for it on your favorite p2p network, which is where I got it. I just googled quickly for the file and found that link.
Uh huh. You know, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
If you've heard the clip where he parodies the Canadian beer commercial, he refers to this.
What press was that? It may have happened, I just don't remember seeing anything other than on Slashdot. Were they talking about it on cable news networks, for instance?
If the law will protect your liberty, it must remove the liberty of your neighbor to kill you. Government is always a balance between defending you and interfering with you. That's just the way it is.
Now as to this Real ID, I'm not sure it's legitimate for the Congress to tell the States how they must administer their internal affairs.
While I think you're on the right track, I'm not sure that there's a whole lot of profitability out there right now. We have so many cheap mineral resources here on Earth that an expensive extra-terrestrial mining operation makes no economic sense. Tourism is about the best we can do for the moment, I think.
Most likely, people who say this are arguing that the benefit is not worth the price.
Er, yes. But the real argument is not about whether the money will be reinvested. It's a given that the money goes somewhere when the government spends it, just the same as it does when an individual spends it. The question is who will choose where these funds go. If the government decides, the money will almost certainly go to different places than if individuals decide separately. Then supply and demand kicks in and the number and type of goods and services available on the market begin to change.
Yes. I like to think of this as a "free market" of laws. Both Nationalists and Internationalists want a monopoly on legislative practice.
The federal government is heading toward "monoculturing" the US. Pretty soon we'll be "Former United States of America".
Yes. But it actually started in 1803 with Marbury vs. Madison. And every time we try to roll back some of the judicial dictatorship, some nitwit will say, "this is just right-wing, fascist, Fundamentalist Christian, [Insert list of half-understood and fully-misapplied adjectives here] ideology!"
C'mon. Check your hyperbole at the door.
citizen and resident, legal or otherwise
We elect our politicians, primarily, to protect the nation. Just letting people run across our border is unsafe and irresponsible.
And if that is the case exactly whose welfare are we defending?
This is actually a very good question. People often misuse or abuse the clause: "[P]ay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Also note that "United States" is plural. Many think of America as a monolithic nation-state but this is not the case. We are a union. The welfare is that of the individual states taken collectively.
I think, though, that the entrepreneurial spirit will take over and somebody will find ways to make money from the arts. Actually, I was kind of hoping that you had some insights I could pirat^H^H^H^H^Hcopy and become the next evil content mogul. :-)
Well, it's not hypothetical: that's how much of my $14k they took. :-) But yes, many people don't pay taxes. A lot of them just take advantage of one of the many thousands of pages of tax code we have.
This does not reduce my voice nor objections to what those elected boneheads choose to spend that money on when it is not where I would wish it spent
It's not even just that. They're spending our money on things for which they have no legal right. The original idea was that the people were sovereign (quite literally, that means we are the King). Because we're busy and don't have a lot of time, we choose people to do some of the work of government for us. But we carefully decided what the limits of their authority would be. That's in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 ("Enumerated Powers").
Almost everything Congress does is outside the bounds of what we've given them permission to do. If a King's delegates did that, how long would their heads stay firmly planted on their shoulders? Like you, I'm not violent, and I don't like the idea of an overthrow of government. Even a bad government is better than none at all. But what resemblence does this government bear to the one we signed up for?
And what choices do we have? I voted for Bush because Kerry was a self-absorbed 60s radical who thinks America is the cause of all evil in the world. But Bush is not really dedicated to cutting the illegal spending. And our Congress isn't either, largely thanks to the massive will of the Buraeucracy and the pressure from government employee unions. I suppose it will end when enough people realize what's going on and decide that it's wrong.
If you can come up with a good viable way of doing this, 99% of the authors, artists, and musicians will jump on it. The pay-for-publication scheme mostly benefits the publishers (which is not entirely unreasonable, since they do a lot of work to get your ideas on store shelves).
Doh! That was me. Posted anonymously by accident.
Just a little test. I want to give $1000.00 of my meager $14,000.00 / year paycheck to help the poor. The government wants to take $1500.00 of my paycheck, give $1425.00 to welfare adminstrators and $75.00 to people who actually need help. Which one is better? What if I don't think those welfare administrators actually deserve as much help as the poor? What if it's a moral issue for me?
I'm a Christian and a Conservative Republican and I completely agree with your .sig. It's absolutely correct and very insightful.