We'll be ready when we are ready. You don't get a program like a Mars landing off the ground by continuously postponing it until we're "ready", because the technology to get to Mars is pretty specific. You keep sending robot probes and the result is the best darn robot probes that money can buy, you build a moonbase, and you've got a good moonbase. You're still not solving the hardest problems of a Mars shot... which is a craft able to keep people alive for about a year in deep space to get to Mars and then land and do something on a planet with a substantially higher gravity than the Moon. And then back again.
No doubt, if we wait, some things will get easier, but I don't think anything gets substantially easier about that process until we focus on it.
The moon is fine, but we've solved the problem of getting to the moon forty years ago.
Sure, if you want to set up a moonbase as a stepping stone to Mars, that makes some sense, but the moon is very close to Earth, compared to Mars. And if a moonbase is the best way to do that, then it will become evident in a Mars program study. I sincerely doubt that people making money on the manned space program actually care if they make the money on Mars or the Moon. They'll take our money either way.
The British will certainly arrest him for breaking his bail. The British, however, would have to get an extradition request from the US, and for that the US would have to file charges. None of that has happened.
And then the British would have to hand him over to the US, instead of handing him over to Sweden, who asked first.
Sure, the US government could get their hands on him if they tried hard enough. One could certainly argue that they have a case for it under law. What is very unlikely is that he will be turned over to the US unless the situation changes substantially. And I don't think an Obama administration would pull a quick move just to get him. For a liberal administration like the current one, having to try and get a conviction on someone like Assange is a no-win situation for them. Better that he stays safely in a place where they can shrug their shoulders and say that he's inaccessible to them.
However, Assange had better think of a better idea before a new administration is in place in the US. If Clinton ends up as president, which is looking like will happen, or worse, a Republican, Assange may well have the US now camping out waiting for their chance to get him. I am almost 100% certain that the Obama administration will be happy to let him slip away, but Clinton could be maneuvered into not wanting to look weak, and some of the Republicans want to string him up.
A AAA game will never be in a humble bundle, and any reasonable sale price will take place after the game has been superseded long ago by something else as the new hotness.
Of course, based on your description, it doesn't sound like you'd get a AAA game at all. Fair enough, but they are very pretty, and often a lot of fun. Good dollar to entertainment ratio? Debatable, but if I play a $60 dollar game for a good 60 hours or more, I'm certainly doing better than I would with a movie.
As for 0-day and preorders? Yeah, that's just the same sort of thing that gets people in line for big movies. They don't want it spoiled, they want to get in on the "moment", and they want the new hotness *now*. There's a social effect there where they have been waiting for it, and all their friends are waiting for it. That's the the only time I have bought a game even close to 0-day: when I am either playing it with friends, or I want to be at the same place in the storyline.
Obviously, this is less of a concern for me as I get older.
I would have preferred that everyone remained professional about the Manning case in the sense of how he was treated, but Manning is now in military prison and has even had transition assistance. It's hard time, but a lot of people consider those actions treasonous, and certainly they have caused problems for the US. It could have gone a lot worse.
Irrelevant. We are talking about people who would be extradited. Presumably, the people you're talking about were taken "off the streets" in some sort of intelligence operation. That isn't going to happen to Snowden or anyone else of his notoriety if they're in judicial custody of an EU state.
You say "illegal combatants" as if it is an old, established concept in martial history -- as opposed to a fairly transparent sleight of hand to get away with gross violations of the GC. Same reason it is on Cuba, not in the US. Pesky laws and regulations.
And you're missing the point. I'm not justifying it's existence. I'm only stating what the entry conditions are. These are going to be people taken in intelligence or military operations. They're not people who are handed over in extradition proceedings. You can verify that yourself, if you doubt it. The lists of people in the camp are more or less public.
No one in EU jurisdiction is an illegal combatant, and more to the point, no one from the EU would be extradited if the US was known to change the status of prisoners like that. The EU will make an agreement with the US, and whether the US wants to put them in a hole like Gitmo or not, it won't happen because the US doesn't serve it's interests that way. The administration isn't going to break all it's extradition agreements with the EU just for one person, no matter how nefarious.
It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
So anything short of that is acceptable?
I don't recall saying anything is "acceptable". I'm only telling you why no one in Snowden or Manning or Assange's positions will ever set foot in there, even if turned over to the US via extradition.
People in the US judicial system don't get sent to Gitmo. For all that it might be illegal and certainly not a place I'd want to end up in, it's not a secret prison. We know who is in there and presumably why.
In this discussion, Guantanamo Bay is a bogeyman, and that's all. I understand why people feel strongly about it, but unless the existing facts and process change, no one in judicial custody is going there.
Why not? He's well known to be an asshole on a personal level. Just because he's a "publisher of the truth" doesn't make him incapable of "rape". Especially under Sweden's rather low bar for calling things "rape".
Did he do it? No idea. That's what him going back to have a trial would be all about.
What I do know is that he's hiding from charges in an embassy because he's concerned that his being charged with rape means he's going to be turned over to the US, which honestly could have happened at any point when he was in Sweden, if they'd really wanted to.
It is incredibly unlikely that Sweden would turn him over to the US.
If they were extradited to civilian law enforcement in the US, they wouldn't go to Gitmo, ever. That would be illegal under *US* law, let alone any other law.
People in the EU may have a problem with the place, but it is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention. It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
No one who is charged with an actual crime in the US gets sent to Guantanamo Bay. That's actually the point of the place. It's for prisoners captured by the US military in an operational area, frequently in battle. If the person is in EU custody and can be turned over to the US to answer charges, they weren't caught by the US military in an operational zone. They'd go to the FBI or US Marshals Service for custody and off to Federal holding cells in a civilian prison just like any other criminal.
What I have seen is that there are a number of people who got relatively cushy jobs and were paid well at certain big companies, but only did a certain specific task.
Unfortunately, that one thing they did was not really all that skillful or in demand outside of that one place.
However, their title was still "System Administrator" or "Developer"
So, when they get laid off, they come looking for one of those jobs in other companies, but those companies need people who know more than just X thing that this guy did at that one place, so they don't get jobs.
I've had a few of that sort come though looking to be "DevOps Engineers". You can't be a DevOps Engineer in a smaller company if you only ran some cookbooks/playbooks someone else wrote for you. You need to both write and run them and know the whole field. We can't afford to pay you $100K and hire a $140K architect to tell you what to run.
Did all those people taking a week off file for unemployment benefits? Because they usually use metrics like that to determine who is "unemployed".
Which is also why people who have totally given up are also not considered in the unemployment metrics. Their unemployment has run out and they are no longer on the books.
It's not unreasonable, it's just unrealistic. As long as they have the power to do so, someone is going to keep noticing that they have this data and try and make money off of it.
Having said that, I'm not entirely certain how you'd stop that. Regulations and laws are nice and all, but if they can just put loopholes in those laws, it's almost worse because it's now not only allowed, but legalized.
My only suggestion is to just understand that what you do on your phone and on the network is now, in many ways, entirely public. Just like back in the day when someone was at the switchboard listening in on you and spreading gossip.
The B-52 is entirely obsolete for the first-line nuclear bomber role that it was designed for. The reason it is still in use is because it is big and relatively cheap to operate and we're fighting wars where air dominance is easily attained by US forces.
The other two bombers are not big ugly fuckers who truck tons of bombs and missiles like the B-52 does. They're more expensive to operate and maintain, and don't carry as much.
However, they are significantly better for situations where you don't have complete air dominance, such as in a war with an advanced power. The only reason that they are not in use is because their capabilities haven't been needed because we're fighting second rate powers.
Nevertheless, eventually we will fight a first-rate power, and then we need an advanced bomber. The advanced bombers we have now are now becoming obsolete, but they're more expensive to operate and maintain than the B-52. So the B-52 will remain, and the B-1 and B-2 will be retired. That doesn't mean we wasted the money, most military force is an insurance policy, if you have to have used it all the time, you run out of uses unless you're constantly invading or attacking people. We've avoided WWIII so far, but it is still there just over the horizon.
The United States never was credibly at threat of an actual invasion during WWI or WWII, unless you mean small Alaskan Islands or maybe Hawaii. That didn't prevent us from needing bombers.
If it gets to the point where someone can actually threaten to invade the US, we're already in an incredibly dire position. You'd have to have bases to launch a campaign from which probably means either Canada or Mexico. To get to that point, the world order would have had to have changed enough so that you could actually get an enemy into either of those two countries.
The point is, do not make every program be justified by the need to repel an invasion defensively. We're more likely to be defeated by cutting us off from world trade than we would be from an actual attack on the mainland. To prevent that scenario, we need to maintain our interests overseas. If you don't understand that, your strategic thinking is stuck somewhere in the mid 19th Century.
I might agree with the F-35 stoppage, but I'd prefer that they fixed the dogfighting aspects of it. We need fifth generation attack fighters that work.
The A-10 is great, but it does one thing very, very well. If it was a choice of keeping it and a a *working* F-35, I'd take the F-35. As the F-35 seems flawed, I certainly don't want to drop the A-10 yet, but I can understand why we don't want to maintain two strike platforms.
I disagree entirely about bombers, though. Bombers carry cruise missiles too. A lot of them. And, in a war with a first rate power, you're going to need overwhelming bombing capacity to overwhelm more advanced air defenses and attack more targets.
Of course, in a low threat environment like most of the wars have been recently, the B-52 has been fine because we almost always have air dominance about 8 hours into a campaign. That's not going to happen in a war with a more advanced power.
This is not the end of history. We will eventually fight another major war with an advanced power. Due to a nuclear deterrent, this will be a touchy matter, and it is likely that neither side will be able to attain an unconditional surrender from the other because of that deterrent.
However, to win that war with its more limited objectives, we'll likely need to take and hold strategic locations that are far from the US. For that, you don't want to have to keep sending sorties of fighter/bombers. You need bombers that can do the job just like the B-17s and B-25s did the job in WWII.
Well... he's not paying the most productive workers the same as the least.
First, many people making $70k are making it because they know certain things, but that doesn't mean they work efficiently. They're needed for those skills, but they can skate along with them, doing very little other than websurfing.
Second, where I work, most people already make over $70k. Not everyone, but a lot of people. Although it is certainly different based on where you live, $70k is a starter salary for tech here. So, it's not like a senior engineer is making the same thing as the janitor, even if they janitor was paid $70k. Most engineers with some experience are making closer to $100k.
What may be different is that he's probably paying people who physically work harder, more money. They're not the franchise players; in a software company a janitor does not create product, but they still work hard at what they do. I'd argue that they may well be the most productive people in the company, it's just that they don't really contribute to revenue. They do, however, make it so that you can take a shit on a toilet that doesn't make you ill just looking at it.
This is not a government program. It is a business person who understands that people are assets. This is something I can get behind 100% and I am glad it is working out. Charity, or better working conditions, is something that we're all better off if it comes from willing parties and not forced on everyone by the government. Sadly, I doubt that we'll be able to dispense with the government role any day soon, but every little bit helps.
The IRS has a law enforcement group that frequently goes after organized crime. I'd imagine they need to spy on criminal communications as much as anyone.
Aside from wondering whether any agency should have them, I don't know what makes the IRS worthy of note as an operator.
I learned early on that you always read the entire textbook as soon as you can. Then you read it again. Your goal is to ace the tests, and the best way to do it is use everything to your advantage, particularly time.
Reading early allows you to choose to do it when you are comfortable and not pressed for time. It also allows you to come back to things you may have missed. You're ready to ask the right questions to the teacher if you don't understand the question, or sometimes, you know what to look up in case the teacher does not know.
You just don't tell anyone that you did that. All you do is simply smile and ace the tests.
And oddly, you actually learn more that way too. Because you're in control and you can enjoy the subject. That's why reading Shakespeare in HS annoyed me, but when I picked it up when I was older, it was a lot of fun. I took my time and read it because I was interested and could enjoy it.
Too bad for my college career that I thought that I was actually going to a place to learn new things and enjoy the experience. The same shit applies.
If you're smart and interested, you will always do better on your own, simply using the educational system to provide the resources you can't get yourself and to sign the piece of paper that says you know something.
That's not a bad way of doing it, but it won't help with an AP exam, and unfortunately, it appears that the AP exam is the standard by which they are measuring things here.
Which is not to say the AP exam is horrible as a tool, but it does require you to structure your class in a way that will provide test prep, and so you have to stay on task with what may be on the test.
You're right. Although I got more out of my AP classes than simply test prep. You're going to get a better CS training out of a teacher who knows their stuff. Of course, you can't really get choosy if you need to fill staff positions in High Schools, but there's a real benefit for getting the real thing.
Your problem is that you learned BASIC and not COBOL. Your COBOL programmers are your mechanics who are fixing up the old cars, BASIC was a toy, albeit a useful one for learning certain things.
You can still make good money as a COBOL programmer. The only problem is that you have to program in COBOL... and work for places that still use COBOL.
In that sense, the mechanic fixing the old cars probably does have an advantage.
You'd still be using standard libraries even if you knew how math works. You shouldn't be constantly reinventing them, and a bunch of people who really know what they're doing have come up with the internals of them. That's why they're a standard, they aren't actually there to be a crutch.
Not knowing mathematics above a certain level certainly prevents you from coding certain things, but it is not really a career-ender for the great majority of coders.
I'd encourage you to get into it, because it can be rewarding and there is probably more job security, but only if you really want to work in those areas.
Plumbing is not a bad living, but it can be a hard living and a lot depends on what you're doing as a plumber. It can be quite physically demanding.
Also, they can make up to 100k and have decent job security, but the average is something like just around 20-30 dollars an hour. It's just that you have the opportunity to work the hours to make the money. It's not like coding which is a 9-5 job were you make 100k for typing things and going to meetings.
Another reason they don't need AP plumbing classes is that plumbing has an adequate apprenticeship program, which I really think many IT jobs should have. Many people don't even have an college degree and are doing okay in tech related jobs.
You don't need to be a CS major to be a code monkey. Seriously, I'd like to take a poll of the people who have used calc or linear algebra in their jobs. Some have, particularly for some sorts of coding like scientific software, but most almost certainly do not.
Sugar wasn't involved in the embargo itself. What happened at one point is that Eisenhower refused to accept an order of sugar from Cuba and didn't export oil to Cuba, but that was a one time thing in the run-up of hostilities and happened before the Kennedy embargo.
The embargo was purely based on the Cold War and maintained by the Cuban immigrants. Many US businesses have been eager to get back into Cuba, maybe not all of them, but they're not really a factor.
That's why Obama was able to move. No business cared, and Obama wasn't beholden to the Cubans in the US because they are generally Republican and conservative. If there was a strong business opposition to dropping the embargo, Obama wouldn't have been able to slip this one through almost unopposed.
Never had anything to with sugar or economics. It was because a) Cuba was an enemy state 90 miles off the coast and b) the Cuban emigres hated Castro and were a powerful voting bloc. After the Soviet Union fell, it was more about B than A.
Now that communism is good and dead and President Castro the Second is in office, we can start dealing again.
Slashdot Mirror
We'll be ready when we are ready. You don't get a program like a Mars landing off the ground by continuously postponing it until we're "ready", because the technology to get to Mars is pretty specific. You keep sending robot probes and the result is the best darn robot probes that money can buy, you build a moonbase, and you've got a good moonbase. You're still not solving the hardest problems of a Mars shot... which is a craft able to keep people alive for about a year in deep space to get to Mars and then land and do something on a planet with a substantially higher gravity than the Moon. And then back again.
No doubt, if we wait, some things will get easier, but I don't think anything gets substantially easier about that process until we focus on it.
The moon is fine, but we've solved the problem of getting to the moon forty years ago.
Sure, if you want to set up a moonbase as a stepping stone to Mars, that makes some sense, but the moon is very close to Earth, compared to Mars. And if a moonbase is the best way to do that, then it will become evident in a Mars program study. I sincerely doubt that people making money on the manned space program actually care if they make the money on Mars or the Moon. They'll take our money either way.
The British will certainly arrest him for breaking his bail. The British, however, would have to get an extradition request from the US, and for that the US would have to file charges. None of that has happened.
And then the British would have to hand him over to the US, instead of handing him over to Sweden, who asked first.
Sure, the US government could get their hands on him if they tried hard enough. One could certainly argue that they have a case for it under law. What is very unlikely is that he will be turned over to the US unless the situation changes substantially. And I don't think an Obama administration would pull a quick move just to get him. For a liberal administration like the current one, having to try and get a conviction on someone like Assange is a no-win situation for them. Better that he stays safely in a place where they can shrug their shoulders and say that he's inaccessible to them.
However, Assange had better think of a better idea before a new administration is in place in the US. If Clinton ends up as president, which is looking like will happen, or worse, a Republican, Assange may well have the US now camping out waiting for their chance to get him. I am almost 100% certain that the Obama administration will be happy to let him slip away, but Clinton could be maneuvered into not wanting to look weak, and some of the Republicans want to string him up.
A AAA game will never be in a humble bundle, and any reasonable sale price will take place after the game has been superseded long ago by something else as the new hotness.
Of course, based on your description, it doesn't sound like you'd get a AAA game at all. Fair enough, but they are very pretty, and often a lot of fun. Good dollar to entertainment ratio? Debatable, but if I play a $60 dollar game for a good 60 hours or more, I'm certainly doing better than I would with a movie.
As for 0-day and preorders? Yeah, that's just the same sort of thing that gets people in line for big movies. They don't want it spoiled, they want to get in on the "moment", and they want the new hotness *now*. There's a social effect there where they have been waiting for it, and all their friends are waiting for it. That's the the only time I have bought a game even close to 0-day: when I am either playing it with friends, or I want to be at the same place in the storyline.
Obviously, this is less of a concern for me as I get older.
I would have preferred that everyone remained professional about the Manning case in the sense of how he was treated, but Manning is now in military prison and has even had transition assistance. It's hard time, but a lot of people consider those actions treasonous, and certainly they have caused problems for the US. It could have gone a lot worse.
Irrelevant. We are talking about people who would be extradited. Presumably, the people you're talking about were taken "off the streets" in some sort of intelligence operation. That isn't going to happen to Snowden or anyone else of his notoriety if they're in judicial custody of an EU state.
You say "illegal combatants" as if it is an old, established concept in martial history -- as opposed to a fairly transparent sleight of hand to get away with gross violations of the GC. Same reason it is on Cuba, not in the US. Pesky laws and regulations.
And you're missing the point. I'm not justifying it's existence. I'm only stating what the entry conditions are. These are going to be people taken in intelligence or military operations. They're not people who are handed over in extradition proceedings. You can verify that yourself, if you doubt it. The lists of people in the camp are more or less public.
No one in EU jurisdiction is an illegal combatant, and more to the point, no one from the EU would be extradited if the US was known to change the status of prisoners like that. The EU will make an agreement with the US, and whether the US wants to put them in a hole like Gitmo or not, it won't happen because the US doesn't serve it's interests that way. The administration isn't going to break all it's extradition agreements with the EU just for one person, no matter how nefarious.
It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
So anything short of that is acceptable?
I don't recall saying anything is "acceptable". I'm only telling you why no one in Snowden or Manning or Assange's positions will ever set foot in there, even if turned over to the US via extradition.
People in the US judicial system don't get sent to Gitmo. For all that it might be illegal and certainly not a place I'd want to end up in, it's not a secret prison. We know who is in there and presumably why.
In this discussion, Guantanamo Bay is a bogeyman, and that's all. I understand why people feel strongly about it, but unless the existing facts and process change, no one in judicial custody is going there.
Why not? He's well known to be an asshole on a personal level. Just because he's a "publisher of the truth" doesn't make him incapable of "rape". Especially under Sweden's rather low bar for calling things "rape".
Did he do it? No idea. That's what him going back to have a trial would be all about.
What I do know is that he's hiding from charges in an embassy because he's concerned that his being charged with rape means he's going to be turned over to the US, which honestly could have happened at any point when he was in Sweden, if they'd really wanted to.
It is incredibly unlikely that Sweden would turn him over to the US.
If they were extradited to civilian law enforcement in the US, they wouldn't go to Gitmo, ever. That would be illegal under *US* law, let alone any other law.
People in the EU may have a problem with the place, but it is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention. It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
No one who is charged with an actual crime in the US gets sent to Guantanamo Bay. That's actually the point of the place. It's for prisoners captured by the US military in an operational area, frequently in battle. If the person is in EU custody and can be turned over to the US to answer charges, they weren't caught by the US military in an operational zone. They'd go to the FBI or US Marshals Service for custody and off to Federal holding cells in a civilian prison just like any other criminal.
What I have seen is that there are a number of people who got relatively cushy jobs and were paid well at certain big companies, but only did a certain specific task.
Unfortunately, that one thing they did was not really all that skillful or in demand outside of that one place.
However, their title was still "System Administrator" or "Developer"
So, when they get laid off, they come looking for one of those jobs in other companies, but those companies need people who know more than just X thing that this guy did at that one place, so they don't get jobs.
I've had a few of that sort come though looking to be "DevOps Engineers". You can't be a DevOps Engineer in a smaller company if you only ran some cookbooks/playbooks someone else wrote for you. You need to both write and run them and know the whole field. We can't afford to pay you $100K and hire a $140K architect to tell you what to run.
Did all those people taking a week off file for unemployment benefits? Because they usually use metrics like that to determine who is "unemployed".
Which is also why people who have totally given up are also not considered in the unemployment metrics. Their unemployment has run out and they are no longer on the books.
It's not unreasonable, it's just unrealistic. As long as they have the power to do so, someone is going to keep noticing that they have this data and try and make money off of it.
Having said that, I'm not entirely certain how you'd stop that. Regulations and laws are nice and all, but if they can just put loopholes in those laws, it's almost worse because it's now not only allowed, but legalized.
My only suggestion is to just understand that what you do on your phone and on the network is now, in many ways, entirely public. Just like back in the day when someone was at the switchboard listening in on you and spreading gossip.
The B-52 is entirely obsolete for the first-line nuclear bomber role that it was designed for. The reason it is still in use is because it is big and relatively cheap to operate and we're fighting wars where air dominance is easily attained by US forces.
The other two bombers are not big ugly fuckers who truck tons of bombs and missiles like the B-52 does. They're more expensive to operate and maintain, and don't carry as much.
However, they are significantly better for situations where you don't have complete air dominance, such as in a war with an advanced power. The only reason that they are not in use is because their capabilities haven't been needed because we're fighting second rate powers.
Nevertheless, eventually we will fight a first-rate power, and then we need an advanced bomber. The advanced bombers we have now are now becoming obsolete, but they're more expensive to operate and maintain than the B-52. So the B-52 will remain, and the B-1 and B-2 will be retired. That doesn't mean we wasted the money, most military force is an insurance policy, if you have to have used it all the time, you run out of uses unless you're constantly invading or attacking people. We've avoided WWIII so far, but it is still there just over the horizon.
The United States never was credibly at threat of an actual invasion during WWI or WWII, unless you mean small Alaskan Islands or maybe Hawaii. That didn't prevent us from needing bombers.
If it gets to the point where someone can actually threaten to invade the US, we're already in an incredibly dire position. You'd have to have bases to launch a campaign from which probably means either Canada or Mexico. To get to that point, the world order would have had to have changed enough so that you could actually get an enemy into either of those two countries.
The point is, do not make every program be justified by the need to repel an invasion defensively. We're more likely to be defeated by cutting us off from world trade than we would be from an actual attack on the mainland. To prevent that scenario, we need to maintain our interests overseas. If you don't understand that, your strategic thinking is stuck somewhere in the mid 19th Century.
I might agree with the F-35 stoppage, but I'd prefer that they fixed the dogfighting aspects of it. We need fifth generation attack fighters that work.
The A-10 is great, but it does one thing very, very well. If it was a choice of keeping it and a a *working* F-35, I'd take the F-35. As the F-35 seems flawed, I certainly don't want to drop the A-10 yet, but I can understand why we don't want to maintain two strike platforms.
I disagree entirely about bombers, though. Bombers carry cruise missiles too. A lot of them. And, in a war with a first rate power, you're going to need overwhelming bombing capacity to overwhelm more advanced air defenses and attack more targets.
Of course, in a low threat environment like most of the wars have been recently, the B-52 has been fine because we almost always have air dominance about 8 hours into a campaign. That's not going to happen in a war with a more advanced power.
This is not the end of history. We will eventually fight another major war with an advanced power. Due to a nuclear deterrent, this will be a touchy matter, and it is likely that neither side will be able to attain an unconditional surrender from the other because of that deterrent.
However, to win that war with its more limited objectives, we'll likely need to take and hold strategic locations that are far from the US. For that, you don't want to have to keep sending sorties of fighter/bombers. You need bombers that can do the job just like the B-17s and B-25s did the job in WWII.
Well... he's not paying the most productive workers the same as the least.
First, many people making $70k are making it because they know certain things, but that doesn't mean they work efficiently. They're needed for those skills, but they can skate along with them, doing very little other than websurfing.
Second, where I work, most people already make over $70k. Not everyone, but a lot of people. Although it is certainly different based on where you live, $70k is a starter salary for tech here. So, it's not like a senior engineer is making the same thing as the janitor, even if they janitor was paid $70k. Most engineers with some experience are making closer to $100k.
What may be different is that he's probably paying people who physically work harder, more money. They're not the franchise players; in a software company a janitor does not create product, but they still work hard at what they do. I'd argue that they may well be the most productive people in the company, it's just that they don't really contribute to revenue. They do, however, make it so that you can take a shit on a toilet that doesn't make you ill just looking at it.
This is not a government program. It is a business person who understands that people are assets. This is something I can get behind 100% and I am glad it is working out. Charity, or better working conditions, is something that we're all better off if it comes from willing parties and not forced on everyone by the government. Sadly, I doubt that we'll be able to dispense with the government role any day soon, but every little bit helps.
The IRS has a law enforcement group that frequently goes after organized crime. I'd imagine they need to spy on criminal communications as much as anyone.
Aside from wondering whether any agency should have them, I don't know what makes the IRS worthy of note as an operator.
I learned early on that you always read the entire textbook as soon as you can. Then you read it again. Your goal is to ace the tests, and the best way to do it is use everything to your advantage, particularly time.
Reading early allows you to choose to do it when you are comfortable and not pressed for time. It also allows you to come back to things you may have missed. You're ready to ask the right questions to the teacher if you don't understand the question, or sometimes, you know what to look up in case the teacher does not know.
You just don't tell anyone that you did that. All you do is simply smile and ace the tests.
And oddly, you actually learn more that way too. Because you're in control and you can enjoy the subject. That's why reading Shakespeare in HS annoyed me, but when I picked it up when I was older, it was a lot of fun. I took my time and read it because I was interested and could enjoy it.
Too bad for my college career that I thought that I was actually going to a place to learn new things and enjoy the experience. The same shit applies.
If you're smart and interested, you will always do better on your own, simply using the educational system to provide the resources you can't get yourself and to sign the piece of paper that says you know something.
That's not a bad way of doing it, but it won't help with an AP exam, and unfortunately, it appears that the AP exam is the standard by which they are measuring things here.
Which is not to say the AP exam is horrible as a tool, but it does require you to structure your class in a way that will provide test prep, and so you have to stay on task with what may be on the test.
You're right. Although I got more out of my AP classes than simply test prep. You're going to get a better CS training out of a teacher who knows their stuff. Of course, you can't really get choosy if you need to fill staff positions in High Schools, but there's a real benefit for getting the real thing.
Your problem is that you learned BASIC and not COBOL. Your COBOL programmers are your mechanics who are fixing up the old cars, BASIC was a toy, albeit a useful one for learning certain things.
You can still make good money as a COBOL programmer. The only problem is that you have to program in COBOL... and work for places that still use COBOL.
In that sense, the mechanic fixing the old cars probably does have an advantage.
They're not going to give you a raise anyway. You might as well let them know.
Just make sure that they also know that you can love your work at a business that gives regular and appropriate raises.
Enjoying your work doesn't mean it ceases to have value, and if your boss thinks that your enjoyment means they'll never lose you, they're chumps.
You'd still be using standard libraries even if you knew how math works. You shouldn't be constantly reinventing them, and a bunch of people who really know what they're doing have come up with the internals of them. That's why they're a standard, they aren't actually there to be a crutch.
Not knowing mathematics above a certain level certainly prevents you from coding certain things, but it is not really a career-ender for the great majority of coders.
I'd encourage you to get into it, because it can be rewarding and there is probably more job security, but only if you really want to work in those areas.
Plumbing is not a bad living, but it can be a hard living and a lot depends on what you're doing as a plumber. It can be quite physically demanding.
Also, they can make up to 100k and have decent job security, but the average is something like just around 20-30 dollars an hour. It's just that you have the opportunity to work the hours to make the money. It's not like coding which is a 9-5 job were you make 100k for typing things and going to meetings.
Another reason they don't need AP plumbing classes is that plumbing has an adequate apprenticeship program, which I really think many IT jobs should have. Many people don't even have an college degree and are doing okay in tech related jobs.
You don't need to be a CS major to be a code monkey. Seriously, I'd like to take a poll of the people who have used calc or linear algebra in their jobs. Some have, particularly for some sorts of coding like scientific software, but most almost certainly do not.
Sugar wasn't involved in the embargo itself. What happened at one point is that Eisenhower refused to accept an order of sugar from Cuba and didn't export oil to Cuba, but that was a one time thing in the run-up of hostilities and happened before the Kennedy embargo.
The embargo was purely based on the Cold War and maintained by the Cuban immigrants. Many US businesses have been eager to get back into Cuba, maybe not all of them, but they're not really a factor.
That's why Obama was able to move. No business cared, and Obama wasn't beholden to the Cubans in the US because they are generally Republican and conservative. If there was a strong business opposition to dropping the embargo, Obama wouldn't have been able to slip this one through almost unopposed.
Never had anything to with sugar or economics. It was because a) Cuba was an enemy state 90 miles off the coast and b) the Cuban emigres hated Castro and were a powerful voting bloc. After the Soviet Union fell, it was more about B than A.
Now that communism is good and dead and President Castro the Second is in office, we can start dealing again.