None of the network neutrality efforts really are focused on increasing competition. I have no doubt that that is why a lot of libertarians and conservatives see this as a naked power grab, rather than as a misguided effort to protect the status quo. They see an effort focused almost entirely on telling businesses what they can do, rather than one that is simultaneously taking a chainsaw to local, state and federal laws that impede competition.
One of the arguments I've heard against abolishing local and state regulations is that competitors will screw up each other's infrastructure. That doesn't have to be the case at all. In Virginia, it is my understand that the fine for not calling Miss Utility or a similar service and then even accidentally damaging such infrastructure is $10k/incident with no limit for any region. Meaning if they damage 1 neighborhood 15 times, the government slaps them with a nearly impossible to beat $150k fine even if all they do is shut off your power for 1 hour before Dominion can fix the damage. There is no reason that this couldn't be the norm and a policy in place to let anyone, at their expense, lay new infrastructure.
has arguably the most arbitrary and capricious process for vetting the applications produced for its platform of any platform provider around?
Seriously, my God man, it takes balls so big you need to be checked for testicular cancer to have Apple's track record in dealing with iPhone developers to get on Google's case here.
Sure, maybe the Android platform will end up truly and badly fragmented, but it is not there yet. Furthermore, at least there is always the option of people creating their custom images and processes for helping end users get around vendor crap.
Because religion, in the West, has never suppressed science.
Galileo is the most famous "example" of scientific persecution. The inconvenient little fact is that the man was persecuted for publicly insulting the Pope who, at the time, had the same powers as any other Italian feudal leader. In fact, he was lucky that he did it to the Pope and not one of the other Italian leaders or a major monarch because they'd have been perfectly justified by the standards of feudalism to torture and kill him. The Pope, being the head of most of the Christian religion, was expected to be more merciful than that (and he was, the punishment was house arrest). Ironically, the very reason Galileo was able to insult the Pope in the Vatican was because the Catholic hierarchy invited him as an honored lecturer to discuss the merits of these new theories.
Heliocentrism, which nearly was declared a "heresy" was nearly declared so because of philosophy, not religion. One of the reasons for the Reformation was the influx of extra-biblical philosophy into Catholicism. Luther bluntly stated that he felt that Aristotelean philosophy had badly corrupted the Catholic Church and it was men in that tradition who persecuted the Heliocentrists.
You know why they did that? Because they merged Christian scripture and Greek philosophy and said "an oval is an imperfect circle, God never makes anything that's imperfect, therefore Heliocentrism is dangerous." You won't find this view in the Bible. It was only in the minds of "learned men" who applied pagan philosophy to Christian scripture, badly.
Ironically, this is why the New Testament frequently bashes philosophers and religious individuals who "value tradition over revelation." The New Testament has several scathing attacks on Greek philosophy and Talmudic legalism.
The logical separator between defensible theft and indefensible theft is the immediacy of the need and the minimal effort and theft needed to satisfy that need. Both of those are met when a homeless man steals a little food here and there. The amount of time and energy it would take said homeless man to steal the TV, transport it to a seller and convert it into currency ipso facto proves that it was not necessary.
You are conflating security (eating for a month) with immediate need (starving now). No one is morally entitled to security, only their basic immediate needs.
There are two types of theft: stealing for necessity (food, medicine and such) and stealing for pleasure.
The guy who steals because he's starving is not even remotely the same as the guy who steals something which he doesn't need to survive.
There was a time when the latter were regarded without any mercy and rightly as the scum that they are. You could use force, even deadly force when necessary, in defense of property that no one needs to meet basic human needs.
Guess what? People pulled this shit a lot less often back then.
The irony of the accusation that letting people use serious force to defend their property is a form of barbarism is that the unlawful taking of property, especially when it damages entire parts of the community, is a real form of barbarism. Basic crime is a rejection of civil society.
The purpose of the Second was so that those that carried arms could organize and could protect others from our own government. Now, it means self-defense.
What... the... fuck...
How can anyone with an above room temperature IQ say "sure, the founding fathers fully intended to secure the right of armed revolution, but they'd be shocked---SHOCKED--at the idea that someone would claim a right on the basis of the 2nd amendment to carry a 9mm handgun in public."
So, let me get this straight. The founding fathers fully intended for people to be able to form a militia--which necessitates private citizens owning military-grade hardware--but never intended the same amendment to cover carrying a civilian-grade weapon by law-abiding citizens?
That's like arguing that the founding fathers never intended for the first amendment to protect what you write down in a notebook because it says "freedom of the press," not "freedom of the notepad" (which is an inferior means of putting your speech to paper for publication).
Most projects love off-loading working onto eager, but inexperienced, contributors. You can't go wrong with most groups by going to them with a good attitude, stating what you can do and asking what you can do to help out. If you get grief from them for that, you can safely write them off as terminal assholes because no reasonably well-balanced human being would slap down someone who approaches them like that.
I've been contributing to a project for a while where the core contributors are far better and more knowledgeable than the average contributor. The community has an elitist reputation, but what I've found from watching how others are treated is that those core contributors will treat the small time contributors very well if they contribute according to their abilities (meaning they don't flood the core contributors with trashy git commits for obviously complicated problems) and work as a team.
Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't like hierarchies and resent the hell out of them. The fact is, however, that they not only exist, but are necessary for social organization.
Only about 10% of the bailout money actually went to building things America needs rather than maintaining the illusion of prosperity in a number of states.
Imagine if the federal government had spent all $700B on infrastructure development. That would probably have put a few hundred thousand people back to work temporarily and gotten us at least the majority of those 30 nuclear reactors funded fully.
The federal government could easily then assign ownership of the loans to a corporation modeled on the Resolution Trust Corporation which was the federal corporation that liquidated the assets of the S&Ls.
This will be used for two things that will shock SHOCK many liberals when it happens:
1) Shut down dissenters by charging them with a civil rights violation or something similar when they, out of sheer ignorance, create a badly designed site.
2) Pummel small vendors of devices.
But again, they'll be shocked---SHOCKED--that it'll be used like that. Much like people were SHOCKED that RICO and the USA PATRIOT Act have been heavily abused.
At this point, Blockbuster is so far behind its competitors that the only responsible choice is to liquidate its inventory, cut some severance checks and pass on the remaining cash as a distribution to shareholders.
We're not used to thinking like that, but Blockbuster has probably not a hope in Hell of actually holding its own at this point. Therefore it should do whatever it can to pass along its remaining value directly back to its shareholders before it squanders it on a vain attempt to beat very entrenched competitors who already have mindshare high ground with the public.
Maybe I have the benefit of experience, having lived in the south and all, but WHO WOULD BE SO F#$%ING STUPID AS TO USE POSSUMS FOR PEST CONTROL?
The damn things are like the mammalian answer to cockroaches. If they didn't have typical mammalian susceptibility to radiation, odds on them among southerners would be 10:1, their favor against roaches to survive a nuclear holocaust by eating the remaining roaches and being the last species standing.
How is this legally different from a typical teaming agreement? The purpose of a teaming agreement is, in part, to keep wages reasonable by discouraging poaching. This is very common and legally enforceable in Virginia. If one our partners offers an employee a sweeter job, their ass is grass once Legal catches wind of it. If another large consulting company comes us to us and offers a large-scale agreement, I don't see a fundamental difference.
The whole point of civil rights is to make the legal system more reliable by protecting people from unjust and wrong prosecutions. They're a check and balance against human error, laziness, incompetence and career ambitions that would taint the results of the legal system. Judges screw with them at the peril of our legal system because once the public starts to question whether the legal system is reliable, the attitude "well hell, they're no better at enforcing the law than the next guy" becomes mainstream and suddenly vigilantism becomes a defensible alternative since the legal system's results are basically about as good as mob justice.
This is a perfect example of why the RIAA's recent win on getting ISP users' identities with a subpoena can be a good thing. He is the victim of a civil offense, just as the RIAA's members technically were. He only knows that some asshole John Doe has maligned his name by doing this. I'm actually glad the RIAA won that victory because it might help him clear his name.
And I say this as someone who normally thinks the RIAA should be thrown through a legal chipper shredder that begins with RICO, takes an intermission at Gitmo and ends in rendition to Syria...
This is trolling, and all it will achieve is angering muslims who didn't have anything to do with 9/11
As I said in the subject, fuck them. Yes, they deserve a swift kick in the face because we in the West act like this teeny tiny insignificant minority of kooky extremists has hijacked over 1.2B people and held them hostage. That is not even remotely rational or realistic. The simplest and most accurate explanation for why there is a "radical Muslim problem" is that no one in the Islamic world really believes their religion is being sufficiently hijacked enough to make a concerted effort to eliminate them.
If you know anything about how the Druz, Sikhs and Ahmadiyyas are treated by their Muslim neighbors, you know precisely how badly Muslims tend to treat those who they feel have "hijacked their religion." Unfortunately for the Palestinians, the Arab Muslim persecutions and massacres of the Druze ended up creating a community that has provided some of Israel's finest and most dedicated soldiers...
Besides, who said "education" had to be practical? College is the one time in your life when you get to learn about things that genuinely interest you. Why not take advantage of it?
Because there are real consequences to going $50k in debt to get an English or Art History degree. People graduating with six figure student loan debts from programs that don't reliably lead to six figure jobs have gotten pretty common.
You know what that level of debt for a degree that provides no discernible practical job skills does to a typical person? It reduces their options on career choice, relationships and ability to save and buy property.
Yeah, you're now an "interesting person" because you know all about some obscure figures in the humanities. A typical person going that route will also not be able to save for a down payment on a house or condo, have to find a significant other willing to put up with and be able to support a serious debt load and will likely still go to a shitty job at that the end of the day.
But oh yeah, they were "taught how to think" or they can pursue a degree in law, even as that means more student loan debt for a degree in a field that has a serious labor glut.
You're absolutely right. People should not go to college specifically to learn how to do something that will enable their future. That's for those filthy stinking tradesmen who make serious money getting dirty working with their hands.
BTW, this also presumes that you are in the lucky 50% who does graduate and can find a good job. God help the help people who go into student loan debt and then cannot graduate for whatever reason. Hopefully their memories of lectures on medieval French poetry will be a consolation when they make their payments.
This sounds really cool until you realize that someone is actually going to get paid good money to teach students, most of whom will be going into debt to participate, a subject which has literally no value whatsoever to the market. The humanities and liberal arts are not training people in the classical curricula anymore (which actually DID teach them how to think) and instead are getting students 10s and even 100s of thousands of dollars in debt.
The harsh reality is that a few years on the pole with a coke habit would still leave the average woman with a better long term prospect of happiness than the popular combination of student loans and a soft liberal arts degree from a reputable private university.
The job situation in I.T. has nothing to do with talent, much like manufacturing has nothing to do with American Unions.
Since the UAW is the last major remaining manufacturing union in the US, I'll point out a few things to you...
1) The average hourly rate, if you throw in benefits, of UAW employees was $75 just a few years ago; American, non-unionized workers at Honda plants get paid an average of $20/hour according to the same article I read. One of my bosses has relatives who work at a Honda plant in Indiana. As they rightly point out, in five years, they'll likely still have a job when the UAW doesn't because the Honda workers know that $75 is just ABSURD for a manufacturing job short of "principle engineer of the entire facility."
2) The UAW is a ponzi scheme. Younger workers today don't get paid crap compared to their older counterparts. It is like the Social Security ponzi scheme, only directly in their paychecks. They work harder than gramps so that gramps can keep getting his health care subsidized 20 years after he quit his job.
3) The UAW has resisted efforts to modernize processes that would bring American manufacturing more competitive with Japanese techniques.
Of course, the real solution would be to make radical reform of the labor laws and the tax laws that cover employment the main priority. It's too hard for workers to work for themselves and to work cooperatively. Starting a new business or working for yourself should be as simple as drafting a business plan or scribbling down some terms on a piece of paper, sealed with a handshake.
If you're hiring a senior level developer, the proper response from the candidate is "I'd have to look up what the API is called. Since I'm here to solve hard problems, I don't spend my time memorizing near-useless trivia that I can look up in under a minute".
If by senior you mean bordering on or actually a software architect, I'd agree. Where I've worked, senior engineers are still expected to know the nuances of the APIs like the junior engineers. Otherwise you get senior engineers who can solve really tough problems in the abstract, but use the wrong APIs. One of the examples that comes to mind for me are the "performance-driven" types I've seen use Vectors instead of ArrayLists in Java web apps.
you seem to value duty over happiness, and you seem to be wary of someone else having at will fickle power that might effect you
Yeah, imagine that. If you actually pay attention to the disproportionate way that men are unjustly treated by divorce courts, you might think it's unacceptable that such power can be unleashed by simply walking away.
not everyone was meant to marry
Then they shouldn't get married if they cannot take the bad with the good. When you get married, you are pledging a continuous duty to your spouse to love and care for them. If you cannot do that, then just don't get married.
What I am sick of are all of the people who get married and then treat it like it's a dating relationship. If you can't take the commitment (and most women cannot, based on the stats), then don't get married.
The study found that being divorced, being sick and other painful experiences have worse effects on a poor person than on a wealthier one.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the poor man watches as divorce attorneys and his ex-wife divide up most of what he earned with his labor. The fact that a woman can divorce a man for literally no reason in particular (this is what "no fault divorce" really means) has made divorce extremely likely to happen to most men, especially lower status men. Women initiate about 70% of all divorces in the United States, which puts the average man at a 33% risk that for whatever reason, he'll end up getting raped by the divorce courts.
Of course, the moment you tell Americans that their personal happiness is secondary to their duties to their spouses, children, family, friends, etc. is the moment you're call an uber-Fascist anti-American Who Hates Freedom. The fact that you voluntarily entered the marriage and are now metaphorically laying down in the bed you made is not something most Americans will accept.
For better or for worse, our system lets defendants get out of cases if they submit to a lesser punishment. Unless you concede that plea bargains are equally extortionist, I can't see a good, logical basis to denounce this in principle other than the fact that they haven't **yet** identified the users beyond a reasonable doubt.
Northrop Grumman was cobbled together over several years from about 1999-2006 from Northrop, Grumman, TRW and several other players. It is so dysfunctional because it is composed of so many competing units that don't operate like a single company. In fact, when I briefly worked for them out of college, most of my coworkers were from TRW and hated the idea of being NGC employees.
Slashdot Mirror
None of the network neutrality efforts really are focused on increasing competition. I have no doubt that that is why a lot of libertarians and conservatives see this as a naked power grab, rather than as a misguided effort to protect the status quo. They see an effort focused almost entirely on telling businesses what they can do, rather than one that is simultaneously taking a chainsaw to local, state and federal laws that impede competition.
One of the arguments I've heard against abolishing local and state regulations is that competitors will screw up each other's infrastructure. That doesn't have to be the case at all. In Virginia, it is my understand that the fine for not calling Miss Utility or a similar service and then even accidentally damaging such infrastructure is $10k/incident with no limit for any region. Meaning if they damage 1 neighborhood 15 times, the government slaps them with a nearly impossible to beat $150k fine even if all they do is shut off your power for 1 hour before Dominion can fix the damage. There is no reason that this couldn't be the norm and a policy in place to let anyone, at their expense, lay new infrastructure.
has arguably the most arbitrary and capricious process for vetting the applications produced for its platform of any platform provider around?
Seriously, my God man, it takes balls so big you need to be checked for testicular cancer to have Apple's track record in dealing with iPhone developers to get on Google's case here.
Sure, maybe the Android platform will end up truly and badly fragmented, but it is not there yet. Furthermore, at least there is always the option of people creating their custom images and processes for helping end users get around vendor crap.
Because religion, in the West, has never suppressed science.
Galileo is the most famous "example" of scientific persecution. The inconvenient little fact is that the man was persecuted for publicly insulting the Pope who, at the time, had the same powers as any other Italian feudal leader. In fact, he was lucky that he did it to the Pope and not one of the other Italian leaders or a major monarch because they'd have been perfectly justified by the standards of feudalism to torture and kill him. The Pope, being the head of most of the Christian religion, was expected to be more merciful than that (and he was, the punishment was house arrest). Ironically, the very reason Galileo was able to insult the Pope in the Vatican was because the Catholic hierarchy invited him as an honored lecturer to discuss the merits of these new theories.
Heliocentrism, which nearly was declared a "heresy" was nearly declared so because of philosophy, not religion. One of the reasons for the Reformation was the influx of extra-biblical philosophy into Catholicism. Luther bluntly stated that he felt that Aristotelean philosophy had badly corrupted the Catholic Church and it was men in that tradition who persecuted the Heliocentrists.
You know why they did that? Because they merged Christian scripture and Greek philosophy and said "an oval is an imperfect circle, God never makes anything that's imperfect, therefore Heliocentrism is dangerous." You won't find this view in the Bible. It was only in the minds of "learned men" who applied pagan philosophy to Christian scripture, badly.
Ironically, this is why the New Testament frequently bashes philosophers and religious individuals who "value tradition over revelation." The New Testament has several scathing attacks on Greek philosophy and Talmudic legalism.
The logical separator between defensible theft and indefensible theft is the immediacy of the need and the minimal effort and theft needed to satisfy that need. Both of those are met when a homeless man steals a little food here and there. The amount of time and energy it would take said homeless man to steal the TV, transport it to a seller and convert it into currency ipso facto proves that it was not necessary.
You are conflating security (eating for a month) with immediate need (starving now). No one is morally entitled to security, only their basic immediate needs.
Hey dumbass, in case you didn't notice, the holding company referenced above is a government-owned corporation.
There are two types of theft: stealing for necessity (food, medicine and such) and stealing for pleasure.
The guy who steals because he's starving is not even remotely the same as the guy who steals something which he doesn't need to survive.
There was a time when the latter were regarded without any mercy and rightly as the scum that they are. You could use force, even deadly force when necessary, in defense of property that no one needs to meet basic human needs.
Guess what? People pulled this shit a lot less often back then.
The irony of the accusation that letting people use serious force to defend their property is a form of barbarism is that the unlawful taking of property, especially when it damages entire parts of the community, is a real form of barbarism. Basic crime is a rejection of civil society.
What... the... fuck...
How can anyone with an above room temperature IQ say "sure, the founding fathers fully intended to secure the right of armed revolution, but they'd be shocked---SHOCKED--at the idea that someone would claim a right on the basis of the 2nd amendment to carry a 9mm handgun in public."
So, let me get this straight. The founding fathers fully intended for people to be able to form a militia--which necessitates private citizens owning military-grade hardware--but never intended the same amendment to cover carrying a civilian-grade weapon by law-abiding citizens?
That's like arguing that the founding fathers never intended for the first amendment to protect what you write down in a notebook because it says "freedom of the press," not "freedom of the notepad" (which is an inferior means of putting your speech to paper for publication).
Most projects love off-loading working onto eager, but inexperienced, contributors. You can't go wrong with most groups by going to them with a good attitude, stating what you can do and asking what you can do to help out. If you get grief from them for that, you can safely write them off as terminal assholes because no reasonably well-balanced human being would slap down someone who approaches them like that.
I've been contributing to a project for a while where the core contributors are far better and more knowledgeable than the average contributor. The community has an elitist reputation, but what I've found from watching how others are treated is that those core contributors will treat the small time contributors very well if they contribute according to their abilities (meaning they don't flood the core contributors with trashy git commits for obviously complicated problems) and work as a team.
Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't like hierarchies and resent the hell out of them. The fact is, however, that they not only exist, but are necessary for social organization.
Only about 10% of the bailout money actually went to building things America needs rather than maintaining the illusion of prosperity in a number of states.
Imagine if the federal government had spent all $700B on infrastructure development. That would probably have put a few hundred thousand people back to work temporarily and gotten us at least the majority of those 30 nuclear reactors funded fully.
The federal government could easily then assign ownership of the loans to a corporation modeled on the Resolution Trust Corporation which was the federal corporation that liquidated the assets of the S&Ls.
This will be used for two things that will shock SHOCK many liberals when it happens:
1) Shut down dissenters by charging them with a civil rights violation or something similar when they, out of sheer ignorance, create a badly designed site.
2) Pummel small vendors of devices.
But again, they'll be shocked---SHOCKED--that it'll be used like that. Much like people were SHOCKED that RICO and the USA PATRIOT Act have been heavily abused.
At this point, Blockbuster is so far behind its competitors that the only responsible choice is to liquidate its inventory, cut some severance checks and pass on the remaining cash as a distribution to shareholders.
We're not used to thinking like that, but Blockbuster has probably not a hope in Hell of actually holding its own at this point. Therefore it should do whatever it can to pass along its remaining value directly back to its shareholders before it squanders it on a vain attempt to beat very entrenched competitors who already have mindshare high ground with the public.
Maybe I have the benefit of experience, having lived in the south and all, but WHO WOULD BE SO F#$%ING STUPID AS TO USE POSSUMS FOR PEST CONTROL?
The damn things are like the mammalian answer to cockroaches. If they didn't have typical mammalian susceptibility to radiation, odds on them among southerners would be 10:1, their favor against roaches to survive a nuclear holocaust by eating the remaining roaches and being the last species standing.
How is this legally different from a typical teaming agreement? The purpose of a teaming agreement is, in part, to keep wages reasonable by discouraging poaching. This is very common and legally enforceable in Virginia. If one our partners offers an employee a sweeter job, their ass is grass once Legal catches wind of it. If another large consulting company comes us to us and offers a large-scale agreement, I don't see a fundamental difference.
Doesn't mean I AGREE with that...
The whole point of civil rights is to make the legal system more reliable by protecting people from unjust and wrong prosecutions. They're a check and balance against human error, laziness, incompetence and career ambitions that would taint the results of the legal system. Judges screw with them at the peril of our legal system because once the public starts to question whether the legal system is reliable, the attitude "well hell, they're no better at enforcing the law than the next guy" becomes mainstream and suddenly vigilantism becomes a defensible alternative since the legal system's results are basically about as good as mob justice.
This is a perfect example of why the RIAA's recent win on getting ISP users' identities with a subpoena can be a good thing. He is the victim of a civil offense, just as the RIAA's members technically were. He only knows that some asshole John Doe has maligned his name by doing this. I'm actually glad the RIAA won that victory because it might help him clear his name.
And I say this as someone who normally thinks the RIAA should be thrown through a legal chipper shredder that begins with RICO, takes an intermission at Gitmo and ends in rendition to Syria...
As I said in the subject, fuck them. Yes, they deserve a swift kick in the face because we in the West act like this teeny tiny insignificant minority of kooky extremists has hijacked over 1.2B people and held them hostage. That is not even remotely rational or realistic. The simplest and most accurate explanation for why there is a "radical Muslim problem" is that no one in the Islamic world really believes their religion is being sufficiently hijacked enough to make a concerted effort to eliminate them.
If you know anything about how the Druz, Sikhs and Ahmadiyyas are treated by their Muslim neighbors, you know precisely how badly Muslims tend to treat those who they feel have "hijacked their religion." Unfortunately for the Palestinians, the Arab Muslim persecutions and massacres of the Druze ended up creating a community that has provided some of Israel's finest and most dedicated soldiers...
Because there are real consequences to going $50k in debt to get an English or Art History degree. People graduating with six figure student loan debts from programs that don't reliably lead to six figure jobs have gotten pretty common.
You know what that level of debt for a degree that provides no discernible practical job skills does to a typical person? It reduces their options on career choice, relationships and ability to save and buy property.
Yeah, you're now an "interesting person" because you know all about some obscure figures in the humanities. A typical person going that route will also not be able to save for a down payment on a house or condo, have to find a significant other willing to put up with and be able to support a serious debt load and will likely still go to a shitty job at that the end of the day.
But oh yeah, they were "taught how to think" or they can pursue a degree in law, even as that means more student loan debt for a degree in a field that has a serious labor glut.
You're absolutely right. People should not go to college specifically to learn how to do something that will enable their future. That's for those filthy stinking tradesmen who make serious money getting dirty working with their hands.
BTW, this also presumes that you are in the lucky 50% who does graduate and can find a good job. God help the help people who go into student loan debt and then cannot graduate for whatever reason. Hopefully their memories of lectures on medieval French poetry will be a consolation when they make their payments.
This sounds really cool until you realize that someone is actually going to get paid good money to teach students, most of whom will be going into debt to participate, a subject which has literally no value whatsoever to the market. The humanities and liberal arts are not training people in the classical curricula anymore (which actually DID teach them how to think) and instead are getting students 10s and even 100s of thousands of dollars in debt.
This is probably one the harshest, but most accurate statements I've read about what this level of useless content paid for with debt is doing to the lives of students:
Since the UAW is the last major remaining manufacturing union in the US, I'll point out a few things to you...
1) The average hourly rate, if you throw in benefits, of UAW employees was $75 just a few years ago; American, non-unionized workers at Honda plants get paid an average of $20/hour according to the same article I read. One of my bosses has relatives who work at a Honda plant in Indiana. As they rightly point out, in five years, they'll likely still have a job when the UAW doesn't because the Honda workers know that $75 is just ABSURD for a manufacturing job short of "principle engineer of the entire facility."
2) The UAW is a ponzi scheme. Younger workers today don't get paid crap compared to their older counterparts. It is like the Social Security ponzi scheme, only directly in their paychecks. They work harder than gramps so that gramps can keep getting his health care subsidized 20 years after he quit his job.
3) The UAW has resisted efforts to modernize processes that would bring American manufacturing more competitive with Japanese techniques.
Of course, the real solution would be to make radical reform of the labor laws and the tax laws that cover employment the main priority. It's too hard for workers to work for themselves and to work cooperatively. Starting a new business or working for yourself should be as simple as drafting a business plan or scribbling down some terms on a piece of paper, sealed with a handshake.
If by senior you mean bordering on or actually a software architect, I'd agree. Where I've worked, senior engineers are still expected to know the nuances of the APIs like the junior engineers. Otherwise you get senior engineers who can solve really tough problems in the abstract, but use the wrong APIs. One of the examples that comes to mind for me are the "performance-driven" types I've seen use Vectors instead of ArrayLists in Java web apps.
Yeah, imagine that. If you actually pay attention to the disproportionate way that men are unjustly treated by divorce courts, you might think it's unacceptable that such power can be unleashed by simply walking away.
Then they shouldn't get married if they cannot take the bad with the good. When you get married, you are pledging a continuous duty to your spouse to love and care for them. If you cannot do that, then just don't get married.
What I am sick of are all of the people who get married and then treat it like it's a dating relationship. If you can't take the commitment (and most women cannot, based on the stats), then don't get married.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/
Probably has something to do with the fact that the poor man watches as divorce attorneys and his ex-wife divide up most of what he earned with his labor. The fact that a woman can divorce a man for literally no reason in particular (this is what "no fault divorce" really means) has made divorce extremely likely to happen to most men, especially lower status men. Women initiate about 70% of all divorces in the United States, which puts the average man at a 33% risk that for whatever reason, he'll end up getting raped by the divorce courts.
Of course, the moment you tell Americans that their personal happiness is secondary to their duties to their spouses, children, family, friends, etc. is the moment you're call an uber-Fascist anti-American Who Hates Freedom. The fact that you voluntarily entered the marriage and are now metaphorically laying down in the bed you made is not something most Americans will accept.
For better or for worse, our system lets defendants get out of cases if they submit to a lesser punishment. Unless you concede that plea bargains are equally extortionist, I can't see a good, logical basis to denounce this in principle other than the fact that they haven't **yet** identified the users beyond a reasonable doubt.
Northrop Grumman was cobbled together over several years from about 1999-2006 from Northrop, Grumman, TRW and several other players. It is so dysfunctional because it is composed of so many competing units that don't operate like a single company. In fact, when I briefly worked for them out of college, most of my coworkers were from TRW and hated the idea of being NGC employees.