I work from home most days, and Rachel and her robot army usually call a couple of times a day. I've tried anything from stringing them along to yelling at them for being criminals to putting the phone down, and they still call back. (The one serious thing I haven't tried is the combination of reorder tone and a "The number you are calling has been disconnected" announcement, which I should just have as a handy .wav to play at them.)

I wonder where they get their labor - some of it sounds like Canadian or Caribbean call centers, but there are a lot of US prisons, including the for-profit ones, that run call centers as something more lucrative to have prisoners doing than farm work or making license plates. Given how they're wasting their workers' time almost as badly as the people they call, it must be really cheap.

I don't do that to them, though I have occasionally called them a bunch of names (besides crook and scammer.) Sometimes I'll ask how their family feels about them being criminals, or how they feel about working for criminals, or asking why I should trust them with my information now when they've a bunch of lying crooks, or I'll tell them "just a sec" and put the phone down.

Lately I've been telling them that the last time they called, I got cut off, and asking what notes they have on their computer screen from the last time they called. Some of them hang up right away, but the one yesterday said she doesn't have a computer, she just takes my information on paper.

What a cheapass bunch of scammers! Back when I designed PBXs and call center equipment, the main costs changed from telecom charges (early 80s) to labor (90s), but even now, when phone call minutes are basically free, and exploitable workers are pretty cheap, it still seems hopelessly inefficient not to give them good information so you can maximize the money they scam from customers and minimize the labor it takes to call your victims, probably even if you're also ripping off the call center workers by having them work from home on "commission".

The point of putting it in a URL shortener is that Slashdot limits the number of characters you can put in a signature. Sorry if the news article has lots of Javascript; I run NoScript and AdBlockPlus, so I don't see any of it.

Of course it is, and the misogyny was obviously there. But studying home economics isn't the same as being a homemaker, either.

And when I was in high school, it was periodically suggested that I should try out for basketball, because I was one of the taller kids in the class. (It wasn't suggested by anybody who'd seen my klutzy attempts to actually dribble a basketball, but playing defense mainly meant getting in other people's way and then handing off the ball to somebody faster, which I could sometimes manage.)

Autonomous vehicles, especially ones that can go off-road? Fill the trunk with cocaine, set the GPS for a garage somewhere northeast of Mexicali, and unload it when it arrives.

Google+ was trying to be a social network, and one of Google's execs (I think Eric?) also described it as an "identity service", which is something advertisers may want but slightly fewer than zero readers and writers actually wanted. No Facebook kill here, even if it does stick around longer than Orkut (which mainly took off because John Perry Barlow gave a bunch of invites to friends in Brazil, and Brazilians thought it was a great service for gossip.)

There's lots of actual scientific debate, at least when it can get funding and doesn't get censored by the governments that fund it. It's not about "Is the climate changing, in ways that will get us in trouble, because of things humans have been doing?"; that's all settled. It's more about "Precisely how fast is it changing, and in what ways, and who's going to bake first or freeze first, and whose coastline is going to get flooded how fast, and how does agriculture have to adapt to keep us from starving in a few decades or a century, and how much of the ecology can we save while we're at it?"

So laws like North Carolina's ban on considering any global warming effects beyond 30 years? Pretty much criminal, and obviously written by a bunch of 70-year-olds who don't think they'll need a beach house after that, plus some 50-year-olds who think they'll be retired from politics by then. I used to live in Delaware and New Jersey, both states with beach industries constantly affected by erosion and flooding, and North Carolina's coastline is the same way. If the sand washes away your property values drop and then your house washes into the ocean, and when the barrier islands are gone, the mainland starts to go pretty fast also.

This isn't simply the kind of big money that some people want to spend and other people don't want to pay for, like fixing old bridges or highways. This is the Energy Industry and its friends in the Energy-Consumption Industries who really really don't want Congress* making laws that will interfere with their business, which reducing carbon emissions inherently will.

They're not doing fair arguments, like "Don't limit our carbon, it'll crash the economy and our profits and your momma's job." They know that's a loser, so they're trying to head it off at the pass by getting the public not to believe in science, especially climate science, and there was a ready-made propaganda machine just sitting there for hire in return for funding right-wing politicians who'll also do you favors like starting wars for oil. You thought all of that argument about "Evolution" was just to get Fundies to show up at the polls? It's also to get them and any other right-wingers to echo the politically correct mantras about "Don't trust scientists", because "Global Warming Is A Hoax" is a message from the party's corporate sponsors.

* Also parliaments of various countries, but it's primarily a US political thing for the moment, with a bit of overflow into the UK and other Fox News media outlets, and a bit into Canada.

Last time I went to buy a car, I got an offer from the weekend sales manager at one dealer*, but told them I was going to check with several other dealers for the same brand to see what they had in inventory. (It was September, and the cars from the new model year were trickling in randomly.) Came back the next day to buy the car, and the weekday sales manager said he couldn't sell it to me at that price, wanted $500 more. I told him no, we had a deal. He said, ok, then, I can sell it to you at that price if you buy this extra crap. Nope. Ok, then, let me see what I can do, goes in the back, comes back with a contract that has a different $500 of extra crap in it. I walked. Went over to the other dealer, spent $500 less for a car with $500 less in options (some of which I had actually wanted), so they ended up with about $200-300 less in profit and were happy to sell it to me.

*Premier Kia/Nissan/Etc. in Fremont, if you're in the San Francisco Bay Area. A year later they sent me an email advertising a big sale on cars, and I pointed out that I already had a new car of the brand they sell, and that not only would I not buy another car from them, if my car breaks down right in front of their shop I'll have AAA tow it somewhere else to get fixed. Six months later they sent me another email :-) Next time I'll have to check whether the US CAN-SPAM law or the California anti-spam laws still let me sue them for $500 in small claims court, like they did for a while.

The university I went to would get really annoyed at you if you called their School of Human Ecology (originally called Home Economics) misogynist. If you wanted to study nutrition, or child development, or textile technology, that was the place to go, and if you wanted to be pre-med and could only afford in-state tuition, you could do it there or at the ag school.

Spending a summer learning a physical skill is really valuable, even if she doesn't spend a full year at it. I took an evening car mechanics course one summer at the local high school adult education program, and even though half the things I learned to work on have been replaced by computers, it's still been useful for a lifetime of owning cars. And learning to weld and use basic tools are strongly worthwhile, especially if your niece didn't take wood shop or metal shop in junior high.

There's currently a serious glut of lawyers in the US market, and not just in LA and NYC. Sure, graduates from Harvard Law and its peers are going to have an advantage, doing high-end corporate law, but news articles I've been reading recently say that for average-quality law students at average-quality law schools, some ridiculous amount like 1/3 don't have a real law job within a year out of school, and the pay scales don't match the level of student-loan dent they have to pay off for most of them. A lot of the entry-level jobs are things like public defenders (get paid dirt, heavy case loads), or small-town business/real-estate (plumbers get paid better.)

And farming? Are you kidding? Americans may have a warm place in their hearts for farmers, especially if their grandparents farmed, but their grandparents got their butts off the farm and moved to the city for good reasons. And that was before mechanized agriculture radically changed the number of farm workers it took to grow food, and pushed us toward monoculture agribusiness that needs maybe 3% of the US population to grow most of the food, and most of the farm labor is low-paid migrant work. If you inherit some land or are willing to move to a dying town out on the prairie, sometimes you can make it pay off, or and there are some places you can do specialized-market farming and do ok at it, but it's tough work that won't put your kids through college.

Corrections? Yes, the US has far more prisoners per capita than China or even Soviet Russia used to, and until we end the drug war and have some time for its spin-off crimes like the gang business to die down, it'll probably stay big business for another few decades, but most of the work is morally about one step above being a slave-owner and financially it's two steps above minimum wage, competing with a labor pool of people who need a job that doesn't require an education, just a mostly-clean criminal record and adequate citizenship papers.

Any specific trade you learn is subject to random technological revolutions. You need to learn as much math as you can cope with, because it's at the core of any engineering or science, which are the jobs that add value. You need to learn basic finance, even if your real accounting is going to get done by computers or professionals. You need to learn a bit about demographics, because that's one of the big things that drives what technologies and jobs and financial practices are going to be around in any given decade. You need to learn some hands-on skills so you can fix your own stuff, build your own art projects, and have some generally satisfying competence for dealing with the real world. You need to learn to write clearly for almost any job you've got.

A demographic example - the Baby Boom echo of WW II is getting ready to retire (traditional retirement for a few, running out of jobs they're in shape to do for others.) So there's going to be a need for increasing medical care, and for figuring out how to organize communities that can cope with them (traditionally these were either called "cities" or "extended families" or eventually "nursing homes".) There's going to be a need to build or retrofit houses that let you fit a wheelchair through the bathroom door. But financially, there's going to be a lot of capital around that wants to be turned into income, and fewer people working to earn that income. That means that interest rates and stock dividends are probably going to be lower, pension funds are going to be in trouble because the ratio of workers to retirees is lower, and there's going to be a smaller source of taxes on working people to support the retired people who don't have savings or who thought that the Social Security Trust Fund was anything other than a tax on the future generations. (How much of that stuff did I think about during my career? Very little :-)

It's 2.4GHz only, but I guess I could hang it next to my Linksys router, which can do 2.4 or 5 but not both at once, and which doesn't do IPv6 :-)

Because most ISPs still haven't gotten their act together with IPv6, and many of the ones that have would rather outsource the tunnel function rather than run it themselves. And one of the biggest hurdles toward doing IPv6 (besides getting decent performance out of the bigger network equipment) is replacing all the cable modems / DSL routers / etc. that don't support it adequately.