Sounds to me like you're just playing a game of word masturbation here.

Sure, you can claim that the word "invest" is only supposed to indicate spending money on a tangible good of intrinsic value. But every day, millions of people use the term differently.

One could just as easily say that putting money anyplace where there's a relatively good chance of that money increasing is "investing". My retirement fund, for example, is based on holding a bunch of mutual funds -- assets which are no more tangible than Bitcoin.

When it comes right down to it, almost nothing you can think of has a long-term guaranteed, stable value. Historically, precious metals have been considered among the most stable -- yet in a catastrophic "collapse of civilization as we know it" scenario, it quickly gets called into question as having ANY real worth anymore.

A basic necessity like food? Sure, as long as humans need to eat, it would be hard to envision it becoming worthless. But it's not a great investment idea either, in the sense that most food perishes after a certain length of time -- and it would be exceedingly unlikely that your food items would suddenly surge in value enough to justify your costs of storing it.

I know a *lot* of kids in primary through middle school are really into playing Minecraft. Several schools in the area have started experimenting with not only teaching fundamentals of coding using Minecraft, but also using it to teach other subjects like math or physics.

It reminds me a bit of when I was in school in the 80's, how the LOGO programming language was often used as an intro to programming. You're not going to go out and develop a useful piece of software just from learning how to code in LOGO, just as learning to do custom mods in the world of Minecraft has limited utility elsewhere. But the concepts and basic skills translate.

Additionally, I wonder how many people opt for the 6 year loan vs. the 3 or 4 year one not out of financial necessity, but simply for the flexibility it offers?

I've definitely done that on a couple of car loans in the not too distant past, because there's no penalty for early payoffs and you can designate how much additional principal you'd like to pay down on any given payment, if you pay more than the minimum.

With e longer loan, you get to decide if you'd like to pay the smaller payment or pay some extra (giving you the equivalent of paying on the loan if it was for a shorter term).

I'd agree with you about that behavior being malicious and "over the top" ... but then there's the question of whether or not it was legal. That's really all the court system is supposed to determine. It might be a fine line, but ultimately, I think the courts did the right thing here.

If you volunteer information to a competitor and then it turns out the info you provided was bogus ... it was still information you VOLUNTEERED. There would be a clear legal case here if Novell signed a deal to PAY for this information from Microsoft, and it turned out they received bad info because of a willful intent to mislead and fail to live up to the terms of the contract.

This whole scenario is really not one you'd expect would play out the same way today, either. These days, interoperability has a net benefit to all parties involved. If Microsoft (for example) makes a concerted effort to ensure Linux or BSD or a Mac running OS X can't connect properly to its shared files and folders, it just makes itself look like a less attractive option. (If I have Macs on my network, or a BSD based FreeNAS or what-not, I'm just as likely to start trying to eliminate my Windows clients or servers from the environment as I am my NAS server or Mac clients, if this issue causes me hassles.)

Regardless, at the time, Novell went from "the only game in town" for a reliable server product to a costly option that was beginning to look like it might not be worth continuing to pay for. Hindsight is 20-20, obviously ... but if I was calling the shots at Novell back then, I would have probably tried to lock in a paid contractual arrangement to obtain access to Microsoft's APIs for networking, since that was very much key to my product's future success.

As per usual, the sensible option is somewhere in the middle. The people bashing solar power? You're absolutely right; it's a great PARTIAL solution. The people with a pro-coal agenda, trying to attack the alternatives out of fear? To them I say the same thing! Coal is a great PARTIAL solution. If you're worried about your LONG term business model, you better learn to adapt, like all companies have to do over time to remain successful!

I'm looking into solar panels on my new house, in the next few months. But honestly, the more I research it, the more hesitant I become to pull the trigger on the installation right now. I love the concept, but living in a part of Maryland where the cost per kilowatt hour on electricity is pretty low -- solar doesn't always make economic sense. The strongest argument in favor of it is based on future projections; the argument that "15 years from now -- there's a good chance it will cost considerably more for electricity that you're not producing yourself, making it pay off". Unfortunately, there's an equally strong argument saying the public utilities might stop giving you credit for putting electricity back on the grid by then -- erasing much of the potential cost benefit of the installation.

Without spending nearly double the normal installation price, you're not currently able to put in a solar system that actually STORES your generated power to use later. So you're still tied in to the electrical grid, getting all your electricity from it while your panels just earn you credits back for whatever they dump back out onto the grid. If there's a power outage, your power is out despite having solar -- because your panels have to shut off so linemen working on the outage don't get electrocuted from electricity on the grid they weren't expecting (from your panels).

Just to clarify.... I don't think I ever suggested the entire RF spectrum should be made a total free-for-all. I think, clearly, the people who paid to purchase portions of it for commercial activities are entitled to use those parts of the spectrum without disruption. (And yes, unfortunately, that means we've probably got keep another initialed government agency around to manage that -- hence the FCC.)

My main point was that I think the spectrum, by and large, should be made available for the general public's free use. Many of the complaints of illegal and disruptive use of CB radio has very little to do with the idea that its users are "untrained" (like they supposedly would be, by contrast, earning HAM radio licenses). It has FAR more to do with it lacking in usefulness with the limits on power output levels the FCC placed on it. When you're only allowed to broadcast with 4 watts of power, maximum, and the predominant use is to talk between moving vehicles -- you just don't get enough range not to frustrate users. That, in turn, leads to people slapping in all sorts of poorly designed and leaky power amplifiers of questionable origin, and broadcasting garbage all over the spectrum.

And as I believe I said in my original message? I'm fine with HAM existing for those wishing to broadcast on the frequencies most useful for transmitting very long distances. That's a niche case though, compared to all the people who just want a free alternative to using a cellphone or some commercial walkie-talkie, for general/casual conversations and to enhance safety when on the road. These people should at least be able to use something more like what's available currently with a 2 meter HAM radio, without need of a govt. issued callsign.

is only being promoted in the U.S. today because of our monetary policies (Federal Reserve).

Why would companies feel pressure to keep growing exponentially, if it weren't for the value of the dollar dropping year after year, as we put more into circulation to pay down government debts?

When you look at charts showing the buying power for a typical American worker from, say, 1900 to the present? It's clear that at best, folks are simply treading water with the raises they've received over the last 20 or 30 years. Business who want to show continuous increases in stock value have to expand at exponential rates to keep that going -- and heck yeah, it's not sustainable.

To the point of the original topic here? No, I think "desperation" isn't the right word to describe the situation (but it sure does command more attention and therefore readers of the editorial). I *do* think money is what compels people to open up their cars, homes, etc. to complete strangers -- but that's as old as money itself! Services like Uber may have come about because people aspired to do more than receive some relatively crummy paycheck working full-time for an employer. But they're only successful because they address real needs that the "status quo" wasn't addressing adequately. Everyone I know in the D.C. area prefers Uber to calling a traditional cab. Why? Because it's just a better experience. If I call a cab, I don't have a way to track the cab in real time on a map, to see how long it will take to arrive. I don't get a convenient emailed statement as soon as my ride is over, detailing how far I went, where I started and stopped, etc. And like the last time I used Uber, I was able to call an SUV specifically, so we could load up a bunch of boxes in the back without any issues. Uber also regularly offers discount promotions. When's the last time you got a discounted cab fare promotion in your email?

HAM radio has long irritated me -- because while I completely see the value in people forming clubs to learn to use it, and value in cooperation so the bands can be used constructively? I think getting federal govt. involved in it was a HUGE mistake.

I don't care how "easy" the licensing has become. The idea I should have to earn (and pay for) a license before I have the privilege of transmitting over the airwaves disgusts me. I was always very interested in the hobby, even purchasing a hand-held HAM radio receiver at one time to play around with. But ultimately, I got into CB radio and sold the HAM gear, because it's more true to how I think it should all work.

When I used to listen to the "regulars" on the HAM bands, chatting, it struck me as largely a crowd of entitled, older men who felt self-important that they had this govt. issued call-sign to flaunt around.

I'm sure many others simply take HAM radio as a serious responsibility (ability to get communications through in major emergencies, etc.) -- and that's great. But I'd rather see CB radio expanded to be far more useful by turning over a bigger chunk of these licensed HAM bands for the general public. Even on existing CB, I've seen channel 9 monitored very efficiently by volunteers at local radio stations who path you through to emergency services if needed. No govt. licensing necessary to make that function.

The thing is though? The truth is typically someplace roughly in the middle.... EG. In Bundy's case, the truth is somewhere between his idea that federal land ownership is "unjust", and the idea that federal govt. should buy up huge swaths of land and just sit on them (for over 100 years at a time, in this instance, and probably many others) -- and then selectively enforce rules with an iron fist, when they suddenly deem it worthwhile.

So the "anarchy" brings attention to the initial problem, and *hopefully* brings about an end result of some modification to existing regulations, to improve things in the future for everyone.

It's pretty well documented in historical records that when the United States fought for freedom from England and the Revolutionary War began, there was a lot of this "over the top" behavior involved too. British soldiers, ordered to simply stand guard in certain areas, were spit on, had beer bottles thrown at them from nearby taverns, etc. -- in an attempt to provoke one of them to give in and fire a weapon. Bottom line? You can't really create effective change if you just sit quietly by and follow all the rules. The protesting/anarchy isn't usually 100% right, but it serves as a catalyst for change.

People *do* still want over the air broadcasts. What I think people didn't want was the increased difficulty level of receiving a constant, watchable signal. That's the unfortunate side-effect of the OTA broadcasts going digital. With analog signals, sure -- you might lack some clarity. But poor reception that only caused the picture to get a little fuzzy (or occasionally lose vertical sync) becomes a total interruption of both audio and video.

A lot of people would like the option to receive those broadcast stations without the hassle of getting an antenna rigged up that pulls them in reliably. But others still prefer the OTA broadcast, because it frees them from reliance on a 3rd. party delivering it to them. ISP's are starting to talk about bandwidth caps and throttling, increasingly, as people generate more and more traffic streaming video content. OTA frees you from having to chew up bandwidth on any of that content, at least. And you don't get stuck with fees like you do with cable or satellite.

Honestly, I think what's rather ridiculous is that our legal landscape encourages companies like Aereo to exist in the first place! Their whole business model is technically insane.... (Really? Maintain whole fields of micro antennas all doing the exact same thing, just to try to find a way around legislation we've got in place preventing them from offering the same service in a far more sensible manner?) If the OTA broadcasters had any sense, they'd offer free Internet streaming as an alternate method of reception, and do all of that themselves! Then they could substitute advertising that made sense for the wider audience listening via the Internet, on the streaming version.

I don't think the majority were ever really shitting on blue-collar work that requires special skills, for one thing. That's just a false perception, brought to you by crybabies in the unions who are mad they didn't get a free ride all the way through to retirement with 100% paid healthcare, while not making more than the minimum effort.

To be honest, I knew an awful lot of people in I.T. who switched careers both INTO it from a blue-collar job AND back out of it to a blue-collar job. It used to be surprisingly common, for example, how many long-haul truck drivers took an interest in an I.T. career, and by contrast, how many who worked in I.T. for years got burnt out and said they'd rather go into construction.

Doctors are kind of in their own separate class in the work-world, IMO. They're so heavily invested in their schooling, it's a pretty major commitment to change careers after that and discard the medical training. Many who you'd think earn pretty big salaries never get to enjoy their money until they're within 10 years of retirement, because they're still paying off student loans until then.

But yeah, skilled trades like electricians, carpenters, plumbers? I think they've always commanded a certain level of respect, if they can prove they're competent.
The real problem with those trades is they're tied to how many clients out there have the financial ability to remodel, rehab, or build new properties. When the housing market goes into a slump, people in these fields start having problems finding work. I had a buddy with a lot of "tool and die" experience, for example. For years, everyone told him his skillset was in high demand and he could command premium salaries. For a little while, he did ... but when there was a general downturn in manufacturing in the U.S., fewer people needed to hire tool and die guys, so he struggled.

A lot of "white collar" jobs, by contrast, tend to be a little more stable, only because they deal in things a business needs every day it stays open, like accounting. (When your pipes aren't leaking and a bathroom remodel isn't on your "must do" list, you don't need to pay a plumber. But you probably DO have bills to pay and bills to mail out and collect on every day.)

I'm *positive* this is true. I spent well over a decade doing I.T. in manufacturing environments, and my wife spent years more working in similar facilities. Since then, I've also done on-site computer service calls for a number of manufacturing places (mostly steel fabricators and plastics molding companies).

The one thing I've found in common at ALL of them is a strong desire by management to squeeze costs to the bare minimum, to the point where "standard practice" dictates using as much unskilled, barely qualified labor as possible, while sticking one or two "senior level" guys with the job expectation of training everyone else.

Of course, this usually leads to disgruntled senior level workers, who feel like they have to spend most of the work day "babysitting" incompetent people all around them (while still being expected to turn out the same amount of work as they always did before). The other low-paid hires tend to be a revolving door, as management fires them whenever they don't learn something quickly enough, or they make a costly mistake or two while trying to learn.

From the I.T. standpoint, I witnessed the same "penny-wise but pound-foolish" behavior more directly when it came to the equipment on the shop floor or in the labs. They'll invest tens of thousands of dollars on special equipment (most of which is tied in to a standard-issue PC running DOS or a flavor of Windows, except creatively mounted in some kind of steel cabinet so it doesn't *look* like an off-the-shelf PC on the outside). Then when something goes wrong, they want an I.T. guy like me to try to fix it, because the hourly rate for a service call from someone specializing in servicing it is "way too expensive". So far, I've been asked to tear into and try to fix everything from X-Ray Spectrometers to a control system for a "web press" machine that punches holes in steel beams as they roll down a conveyor belt. Truth is, if it's just something simple like bad RAM or a failing hard drive, sure -- I can eventually get that going for them again with a little trial and error. But so often, the issues have been with calibration (mechanical parts drift out of calibration over time, so the software needs some adjustment of values in it to compensate). Or it's some failure with an oddball hardware controller board in the system that I have no way of finding a suitable replacement for.

I know around the metro D.C. area, you definitely have a decline in the popularity of golf courses. This area used to be loaded with them, and one by one, they're closing down.

Meanwhile, cycling is *huge*. The area has always had very good trails for cyclists, so that probably doesn't hurt either .... But I've seen an increasing number of people getting involved in various cycling races or just riding nice mountain bikes along the side of roads on the weekends.

The traditional country club catered to the "old rich", IMO. The "new rich" tend to be people who are more "showy" with their money (driving fancy luxury cars, wearing designer clothes in public, etc. etc.). I think for the traditional, old money types, the wealth was viewed more as something inappropriate to flaunt in the general public. Rather, it let you buy into an exclusive social group of people with similar wealth. The younger, affluent people would rather just go out in public with their nice things.

If you remove the exclusivity factor from golf, you're left with something that doesn't seem like it has a lot of value for the dollar. The skills required (mostly about skillful estimating of trajectories and the power needed to land a ball where you want it) are pretty similar to the skills needed to be a good billiards player .... a pastime which costs FAR less and likely draws a larger audience too (if you're good at it while playing on a table at a local bowling alley, bar, or pool hall).

You might have a point, except owning a reliable car tends to tie in to other factors.

For example, the majority of people in the U.S. don't live in one of the big cities where mass transit is truly practical as an alternative to driving to get to and from work each day. Even for many who DO live in such cities, mass transit imposes too many limitations. (For example, if you work as some sort of on-site service technician -- for computers or copiers perhaps? A good, reliable vehicle may be a requirement to perform the job.)

When you purchase a vehicle brand new and finance it, you usually get a better interest rate than lenders will give you on a used one, for starters. And then, you have a consistent payment every month for the next 5 or 6 years, as you pay it off. That consistency is "key" for most people earning those "under 6 figure" salaries. Surprises like a cheaper, used car suddenly having a transmission failure outside the warranty period, are a much bigger problem to tackle.

When your new car, under a factory warranty, has a problem -- you're generally given a loaner to drive while it gets repaired. That means no interruptions with your work.

The trick is to buy only a new vehicle that offers a warranty as long as your financing period. That "3 year, 36,000 mile" stuff they used to sell everyone wasn't such a good value at all.

The funny thing is, I'm hearing the exact opposite complaint coming from some of the people with many years of actual work experience in their fields. They're saying that recently, the college grads with a B.S. or Masters in the field are getting hired over those with real experience.

I don't know? Personally, I suspect the REAL issue is just a high unemployment rate overall. We're all stuck in a "buyer's market" when it comes to those doing the hiring, so expectations and requirements are very high, and opportunity to get hired is low. No matter where you're at on the education and/or skills ladder, it's difficult to get hired right now. So people begin tossing out accusations, trying to explain why they can't get jobs.

I've worked in I.T. for over 25 years myself, and yet I don't have a degree. (I'm one of those people with "some college", meaning a few classes shy of an Associates' degree.) I've *definitely* encountered my share of jobs I was passed over for because someone really considered the degree of prime importance. Yet I don't think my track record for employment is really any worse than my counterparts who did have the 4 year degrees. Yeah, some of them earned $20K - $50K/yr. more than I did, especially during the dot-com boom era.... but in the long-haul? A lot of them lost those high-paying jobs when budget cuts or corporate mergers came around and they had to accept less to get back into the ranks of the employed. Others just got burnt out on I.T. completely and changed careers.

Meanwhile, I don't have all the college debt they had to pay off, and since my salary has been relatively steady for the last decade or more, I didn't get so caught up in the thing of moving to a more expensive area, buying a large house, etc. -- only to have to give it all up when times got rough.

There's a key difference though between the "old guys" like myself and people trying to get a start in I.T. today. I think most of us who lived and breathed computers in the 80's really got into it when it was still a hobbyist's world. Corporate America wasn't even really looking at home computers as more than a passing fad, or something to just "keep an eye on, in case it eventually became useful". When you bought a computer ,you got a 200-300 page manual you had to read, cover to cover, to learn how to make it work. You might have shared knowledge with a few friends you made who owned the same machine, or joined some computer club in town. But all in all, you had to be really motivated to learn it, hands-on. Otherwise, why even waste time with it? My college courses in anything resembling I.T. were largely a joke. Either I knew way more than the professors did, or the courses went in depth on something I didn't know much about because truthfully, it DIDN'T MATTER in the grand scheme of I.T.

These days, I think colleges have figured out much more about what people actually need to know to be successful in I.T. -- and you actually *can* take classes and learn really useful material. At the same time, I see a lot of younger people who seem to be just as "into computers" as I was growing up, but they focus on much different things; social media, web sites, mobile device apps, and MMORPGs that can really suck up a LOT of one's time. It's all pretty cool and entertaining stuff -- but won't translate that well to a career doing network or systems administration, working as a PC support specialist, or systems analyst.