He's arguing that all of the trends you observed are not unique to the past half-century, but is more likely following a cycle that we can observe having happened many times in the past.
Implicitly, this means while it might even be getting worse right now, counter-cultural trends will push towards increased economic mobility.
I would argue that this is a result of a large number of people who would have been capable of economic mobility in a "good" part of the cycle who are being denied the opportunity due to unfair societal conditions. As a result, those capable persons will do whatever it takes to attempt to create a better society for themselves, changing society so other people like them can have a similar shot.
Difficult to say, it's an option I routinely suggest to younger or unemployed friends, but very few seem interested in it.
Also, the job market for trades seems somewhat inconsistent. All I really have are anecdotes, but here goes:
I've got one friend who became certified in welding under the impression it would virtually guarantee him a job, and has been relocating every few months as the jobs dry up in one place, and open up in another.
Another friend has been taking 6-10 week specialized trade courses, working full time for about a year after that, and then finding out those trade skills aren't needed anymore - but there's another 6-10 week course she can take to get an entirely different job. I honestly can't tell if it's an elaborate scam or not.
Eh, I disagree, the founders of the US were wealthy landowners, the 1% of their time, but they were raging against an even more powerful centralized authority (the king) who had the power to trample the rights of the wealthy. It's very likely what they meant by the bill of rights was that those rights were for the wealthy, and everyone else could piss off.
What they didn't foresee is the possibility that anyone besides the wealthy would ever have papers and effects worthy of being unreasonably searched, or that the poor would be sufficiently educated and enfranchised to demand their rights be respected the same way wealthy peoples rights were respected.
Nowadays, being wealthy ensures any given right you wish to have is respected - so there's a push by the wealthy to limit or remove rights granted to everyone. They continue to enjoy rights by virtue of great wealth making them untouchable, and everyone else stops hiding behind those pesky laws that were never intended to protect the common people in the first place.
The reason the speed of light is an unbreakable barrier is because it would take theoretically infinite energy to accelerate anything past the speed of light. It's the place in the equation where the equations break down into infinity, and we can't predict exactly what's going on.
If there's evidence that the speed of light isn't an absolute barrier, it means our current understanding of relativity is wrong.
If magnetic material (like, in a Hard Drive) is moving inside a static magnetic field, it'll produce a current. That'd probably be enough to wreak havoc on a hard drive.
While I was in the military (communications job in the Air Force) - there were a few people in the 50-60 year old range working as contractors out in the desert.
The physical requirements for contractors are much less strict than the physical requirements for actual military members in a war zone, to the point where I'm not even sure if there are any standardized physical requirements.
Educating people is an exponential growth situation, with every successful teacher producing many more potential teachers. Rampant numbers of unqualified teachers and students are a potential short term problem if the field is very new, but modern medicine is hundreds of years old.
The only possible limitations are a shortage of students, or artificial controls on the growth of the field.
It's similar across the country. There was a band teacher who was having sex with one of the students at my high school back in the day. This particular guy was smart enough to make sure she was 18, and got ousted from the district ("voluntary resignation") instead of prosecuted.
Bizarrely enough, I was googling around trying to find his name, and found out that this has happened somewhere around 5 times since I graduated. My old high school has terrible judgement when it comes to hiring band teachers.
Ahh, you're not just trolling, you deserve a bit of a response then.
When I say "from an objective standpoint" - I'm saying that, were I on a jury, judging this as a rape trial, with solely the information available in the article, I would vote "not guilty."
It's very difficult to vaginally penetrate a woman with her pants still on, and very easy for someone to make emotional claims after having been groped. If the whole incident were examined in more detail, and actual evidence existed, it could indeed change my mind.
I find it equally reprehensible that you would leap to the conclusion that she has been raped merely because she has made the accusation. Your attitude, and people like you, have likely caused a number of innocent people to go behind bars.
There are some very strong laws on the books protecting TSA agents from facing criminal charges for anything that that can be remotely construed as part of their official duties. The TSA agent can just say, "I conducted a routine search, these accusations are false." In the absence of any other evidence, this wouldn't even get to trial.
According to TFA, Ms. Aklon already talked to a lawyer about filing rape charges, and was told it would be a "non-starter."
Penetration? Through the pants? From my armchair perspective I'd continue to use the word "groping" to describe what happened here, just like all the other TSA groping cases. It's abhorrent, and should not be allowed to continue, but doesn't rise to the level of rape.
The standard I use when I claim to be objective is thus: If I were on a jury hearing this case, with only the details I've been given from reading the article, I'd vote "not guilty" to a rape charge.
But, as already stated, I'd also vote "not guilty" to the defamation charges. She's certainly within her rights to blog about this using whatever word she wants.
Agreed. I personally haven't flown for vacation in several years(I'd rather drive or take the train, depending on availability), but trips for business are often unavoidable, and I imagine many/.'ers are in the same boat.
It's likely many readers here are personally familiar with how likely this sort of situation is. Even a legitimate screening from a TSA worker who's just doing their job and doesn't even want to be groping you feels like sexual assault, and could probably be described that way without fear of a defamation lawsuit. Calling out personally a TSA agent who was on a power trip is very believable.
While rape is probably too strong a word to use here from an objective standpoint, someone describing it that way in a blog is fully justified. This lawsuit is ridiculous, and will only accomplish a Streisand effect against Thedala Magee and the TSA as a whole.
Eh, I've found that trying to interfere with other people's actions to convince or force them to make what I consider to be "good" choices tends to provoke a great deal of hatred.
Similarly, since I don't appreciate other people cramming their ethics down my throat. I assume other people feel I'm cramming my ethics down their throat when I try, even if I have good intentions.
The inevitable conclusion is that, aside from certain cases where people are dangerous to society, back off and let people make their own mistakes, live my own life as "good" as I possible can. A side-effect of this is that I advocate allowing people in third-world countries to live their lives as they well, even if that means eventual mass starvation.
Slashdot Mirror
He's arguing that all of the trends you observed are not unique to the past half-century, but is more likely following a cycle that we can observe having happened many times in the past.
Implicitly, this means while it might even be getting worse right now, counter-cultural trends will push towards increased economic mobility.
I would argue that this is a result of a large number of people who would have been capable of economic mobility in a "good" part of the cycle who are being denied the opportunity due to unfair societal conditions. As a result, those capable persons will do whatever it takes to attempt to create a better society for themselves, changing society so other people like them can have a similar shot.
Difficult to say, it's an option I routinely suggest to younger or unemployed friends, but very few seem interested in it.
Also, the job market for trades seems somewhat inconsistent. All I really have are anecdotes, but here goes:
I've got one friend who became certified in welding under the impression it would virtually guarantee him a job, and has been relocating every few months as the jobs dry up in one place, and open up in another.
Another friend has been taking 6-10 week specialized trade courses, working full time for about a year after that, and then finding out those trade skills aren't needed anymore - but there's another 6-10 week course she can take to get an entirely different job. I honestly can't tell if it's an elaborate scam or not.
Eh, I disagree, the founders of the US were wealthy landowners, the 1% of their time, but they were raging against an even more powerful centralized authority (the king) who had the power to trample the rights of the wealthy. It's very likely what they meant by the bill of rights was that those rights were for the wealthy, and everyone else could piss off.
What they didn't foresee is the possibility that anyone besides the wealthy would ever have papers and effects worthy of being unreasonably searched, or that the poor would be sufficiently educated and enfranchised to demand their rights be respected the same way wealthy peoples rights were respected.
Nowadays, being wealthy ensures any given right you wish to have is respected - so there's a push by the wealthy to limit or remove rights granted to everyone. They continue to enjoy rights by virtue of great wealth making them untouchable, and everyone else stops hiding behind those pesky laws that were never intended to protect the common people in the first place.
The reason the speed of light is an unbreakable barrier is because it would take theoretically infinite energy to accelerate anything past the speed of light. It's the place in the equation where the equations break down into infinity, and we can't predict exactly what's going on.
If there's evidence that the speed of light isn't an absolute barrier, it means our current understanding of relativity is wrong.
If magnetic material (like, in a Hard Drive) is moving inside a static magnetic field, it'll produce a current. That'd probably be enough to wreak havoc on a hard drive.
There's no definitive cause of *anything* on the Autism spectrum. They're linked by symptoms, because it's a useful diagnostic tool.
Wooooooosh!
It'd be evil to, say, rape a child every night. Or murder them.
You've got one hell of a definition of the word 'Evil' if you think it's comparable to indulgences and accidents.
While I was in the military (communications job in the Air Force) - there were a few people in the 50-60 year old range working as contractors out in the desert.
The physical requirements for contractors are much less strict than the physical requirements for actual military members in a war zone, to the point where I'm not even sure if there are any standardized physical requirements.
If you're using windows, you can open up the volume mixer, and adjust the sound for every individual application there.
Mute the program from that menu, and you're golden.
Educating people is an exponential growth situation, with every successful teacher producing many more potential teachers. Rampant numbers of unqualified teachers and students are a potential short term problem if the field is very new, but modern medicine is hundreds of years old.
The only possible limitations are a shortage of students, or artificial controls on the growth of the field.
Why do you assume a sign will prevent criminals from carrying guns?
It's similar across the country. There was a band teacher who was having sex with one of the students at my high school back in the day. This particular guy was smart enough to make sure she was 18, and got ousted from the district ("voluntary resignation") instead of prosecuted.
Bizarrely enough, I was googling around trying to find his name, and found out that this has happened somewhere around 5 times since I graduated. My old high school has terrible judgement when it comes to hiring band teachers.
Are my pants on?
Ahh, you're not just trolling, you deserve a bit of a response then.
When I say "from an objective standpoint" - I'm saying that, were I on a jury, judging this as a rape trial, with solely the information available in the article, I would vote "not guilty."
It's very difficult to vaginally penetrate a woman with her pants still on, and very easy for someone to make emotional claims after having been groped. If the whole incident were examined in more detail, and actual evidence existed, it could indeed change my mind.
I find it equally reprehensible that you would leap to the conclusion that she has been raped merely because she has made the accusation. Your attitude, and people like you, have likely caused a number of innocent people to go behind bars.
Several, on both counts, but that has nothing to do with this.
There are some very strong laws on the books protecting TSA agents from facing criminal charges for anything that that can be remotely construed as part of their official duties. The TSA agent can just say, "I conducted a routine search, these accusations are false." In the absence of any other evidence, this wouldn't even get to trial.
According to TFA, Ms. Aklon already talked to a lawyer about filing rape charges, and was told it would be a "non-starter."
Penetration? Through the pants? From my armchair perspective I'd continue to use the word "groping" to describe what happened here, just like all the other TSA groping cases. It's abhorrent, and should not be allowed to continue, but doesn't rise to the level of rape.
The standard I use when I claim to be objective is thus: If I were on a jury hearing this case, with only the details I've been given from reading the article, I'd vote "not guilty" to a rape charge.
But, as already stated, I'd also vote "not guilty" to the defamation charges. She's certainly within her rights to blog about this using whatever word she wants.
While I disagree with the message of this post, and the:
You're all pathetic. Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt pathetic.
Is bullshit flamebait - I do feel this comment should be modded up and not down to oblivion. It's a valid thing to argue.
Fuck off.
Agreed. I personally haven't flown for vacation in several years(I'd rather drive or take the train, depending on availability), but trips for business are often unavoidable, and I imagine many /.'ers are in the same boat.
It's likely many readers here are personally familiar with how likely this sort of situation is. Even a legitimate screening from a TSA worker who's just doing their job and doesn't even want to be groping you feels like sexual assault, and could probably be described that way without fear of a defamation lawsuit. Calling out personally a TSA agent who was on a power trip is very believable.
While rape is probably too strong a word to use here from an objective standpoint, someone describing it that way in a blog is fully justified. This lawsuit is ridiculous, and will only accomplish a Streisand effect against Thedala Magee and the TSA as a whole.
Eh, I've found that trying to interfere with other people's actions to convince or force them to make what I consider to be "good" choices tends to provoke a great deal of hatred.
Similarly, since I don't appreciate other people cramming their ethics down my throat. I assume other people feel I'm cramming my ethics down their throat when I try, even if I have good intentions.
The inevitable conclusion is that, aside from certain cases where people are dangerous to society, back off and let people make their own mistakes, live my own life as "good" as I possible can. A side-effect of this is that I advocate allowing people in third-world countries to live their lives as they well, even if that means eventual mass starvation.
personal accountability from the CEO and shareholders?
You don't seem to understand exactly what happened in japan.