In theory, anyone can scrimp and save and work hard and get ahead. I've done it .. without a college education and growing up in a from a family barely getting by, I've managed to improve my income starting as a minimum wage bike repair worker, working two years as an office clerk, and 35 years later clear over $130K/year. I did it because I'm smart, reasonably personable, and have a strong work ethic that makes it easy for me to do just about any job my company asks for, yet strong enough to go look elsewhere when the time is right.

So .. should stupid people have the same opportunity that I have had?? How about lazy people??? How about liars and thieves???

So what type of opportunity are they talking about?? My son and daughter took two different paths through life, she took the college/marriage/house/kid route and she and her husband, who just got his doctorate, are doing much better than I was at 30 years young.

On the other hand, my son took a more laid back, artsy, 'no working for the man' route. While fiscally, he is far worse off than I was at 32, he has traveled the entire United States, has friends in probably every state, does what he wants, doesn't pay taxes, and yet makes enough money to not live off the state. He is 100% debt free. He lives on what he makes, and occasionally dumpster dives for food and materials. Yet .. it's what he has chosen to do. Because he feels we throw away far too much stuff, buy way too much stuff, and spend too much of our lives doing work we don't like.

The things they both have in common is they are both very smart, have good work ethics, and both know the importance of living within their means. I'm sure my son would qualify as someone below the poverty line. Yet he has never gotten food stamps in his entire life and has never asked me for money. Except that one time he broke his glasses jumping off a freight train in Kansas City.

He also is far more in touch with the nutritional value of food and makes good choices when he can than I am. He's pretty darn healthy for someone that doesn't have a regular job. Yet also knows how to pour concrete, build a boat, restring a fiddle bow, and a dozen other things. He has become a modern jack-of-all-trades than can make a few bucks in just about any town, any time he wants to.

So is opportunity just getting what you want?? Or is it having a specific income level??

'Equal opportunity' is a phrase that means nothing, and is constantly overused by those willing to take things from other people and give to others under the guise of 'doing good'. Or as an excuse to control people's behaviors or, in this case, probably their children.

What a great excuse, taking children away from people simply because they are poor. What will the progressive's think of next ....

<sarcasm>Good thing you did research and didn't just use one web site to have an opinion.</sarcasm>

a whole bunch of non-scientists who know very little about cancer other than what they read on the web will automatically talk about terrible corporations putting profits above everything else, and automatically act like sheep and believe WHO.

At least have the decency to wait until some real facts actually come out to post an opinion.

Oh .. wait.. This is /. Sheeple rule!

And we could also stop accidental death by automobile by banning all cars except those the government gives permission to drive. Don't stop there, but a stop to DUI deaths by banning alcohol AND cars.

100% of the population should not have to give things up for the irresponsible or bad decisions of a very small minority. Or do you only think that if it affects people other than yourself??? As long as you don't have to do anything you don't want to do, it's OK to force other people.

It is not irresponsible to have a loaded gun that is unlocked in a house, guns never shoot anyone by themselves. It can be irresponsible in some instances.

On the other hand, a gun in a locked safe is useless for home defense if no one knows the combination. And there are many news stories of responsible children stopping threats in a home because they knew where their parent's guns were. So, what's the use of locking it up to prevent suicide if we don't also make it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 (21??) to know the combination.

The only irresponsible people that I see here are those that think they can create one rule for everyone and think there won't be unintended consequences that might actually be worse. And expect the government to somehow enforce it.

Wow ... wear your tin hat out in public much??

He deserved far more, too bad he didn't get it. Self-appointed saviors/vigalantes like this idiot, Snowden, and Assange get exactly what they deserve. Sadly, they also attract a significant number of sheep who worship their every word.

There are also comments on society in Harlequin romance novels. And comic books, And Broadway plays. And probably every other genre of every media every used.

I'd ask you what your point is, but obviously, there isn't one that isn't forced. And apparently irrelevant.

So which is it ... do we legislate GMO foods to make sure they are 100% safe before they are ever sold, or not legislate self-driving cars until crashes happen and we know what to do to make them safe.

Ah ,,, the hypocrisy and FUD in it all. The GMO group wants to outlaw things they don't want and deny them from everyone because they know what is best, while the other group doesn't know enough yet and wants to make sure no one stops them from getting what they want.

I sure as hell don't want the first batch to be driven without someone behind the wheel for a few years. And that person needs a regular driver's license and the ability to take over if anything either fails or the car can't cope with a situation.

As someone who just drove over 2,000 miles, some of it in snow, I would love to have some of the tech that self-driving cars are making available. But 100% door-to-door service with 100% accuracy?? I just don't see it happening anytime soon. The GPS I used sent me the wrong way twice, and I just updated the maps before I left. Once was not a big deal, it just picked a route that wasn't as efficient. The second failure took me to a non-existent gas station which appeared on the map to be in the middle of a corn field.

We do need regulations. Or do you really want to see a bunch of people killed by an automated car, and the heavy-and of the law come down then.

There is no overriding reason to rush these to market, the percentage of the population that really needs them is very small. For the rest of us, they are just a convenience factor. It's possible they could lower traffic accident rates. Or it's possible that they could increase them since in the beginning, only a very small percentage are going to be automated, so they will have to deal with the millions of bad drivers out there.

I do have one prediction though .. self driving cars are not going to be the market share everyone thinks. Why?? I can almost bet that very few drivers/riders will tolerate a car that follows all the traffic laws, such as not speeding and coming to a complete stop at every stop sign.

Yeah .. then we can ban alcohol. And Big Macs. And soda. Yeah .. that's the ticket. Let's put our health in the hands of the US government. Why don't we just remove all personal choices that slightly affect other people and let the government decide what's best for us. My mother died at 82 of a stroke. From what I can tell, she didn't spend any more on healthcare than lots of elderly people. Everyone dies eventually, and with today's practices, many suffer at the hands of extreme medical procedures because their insurance pays for it. Bring back caps on treatments and stop forcing non-profit hospitals to treat the terminally ill for free and a lot of these costs go away. Funny how making people responsible for their own debt can reduce the impact on society of such costs.

The reality is that many people enjoy smoking. I smoke cigars 3-4 times a week. It's very relaxing to sit outside and read with a cigar instead of being glued to the TV. Sure .. I could read without it. But I enjoy it. I enjoy a cigar or two when I'm out sailing. Or riding my motorcycle.

So .. to all those that want to ban cigarettes .. go fuck yourself. If you don't like it, don't smoke. Walking through a cloud of smoke outside is no more dangerous than driving to work for most people, so don't even start on that.

And don't give me all the bullshit about increased medical costs. If you weren't such a hypocrite, you'd also want ban marathon running and dozens of extreme athletic practices that drive up your medical costs. Then motorcycle riding. And cars.

The problem is, those that want it banned don't smoke, so it doesn't affect them. They are just self-righteous, selfish, useless idiots. They have no problem with taking things away from other people but would fight tooth and nail if the government took something away from them 'for their own good'.

Why would any senior developer/architect need to know the specifics of encryption? That is a specific skill, not a general one. And, if they need to know the specifics, it's a Google search away. Yes .. I do. Because I've had to do it before. Many years ago when I didn't know what it was and had to learn it. Now I can use it. Did you know everything the first day you started working at your company, or did you have to learn some of the things you are doing now???

Stop looking for specific skills and start looking for smart people. Your questions might find someone very skilled in what you need now, but what about next year when something new and improved comes along??

Someone who is smart can learn what you want them to know in a couple of days, encryption just isn't that difficult. Especially if you already know it and can sit down and go over it in the 30 minutes it will take for them to get the basics. Instead of looking for short-term solutions, look for long-term employees, people that are self-motivated to learn new things, and capable of learning new things.

  --- or ---

You need a better job description that specifies specific skills you want. And the balls to ask a few questions at the beginning of an interview, and then show them the door right away if they don't have what you specified in your request for applicants.

Either way .. it's your fault you aren't getting the people you need or want.

It's not the getting old part. It's the last part. Time passes, things change. Those unwilling to learn will be left behind.

I'm 55 and don't have a problem digging in and learning new shit. I gave up COBOL a couple of decades ago. Could still write it if I had to, but I didn't hang onto it like the last piece of chocolate cake.

In 2025, everyone whining about how hard Linux is will be regarded the same as COBOL programmers are today.

And stuck working on old shit that nobody else wants to touch.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!

When Linux was less 'usable', it was simpler.

Increased usability means more scripts and automation, meaning more things are abstracted.

You can't have it both ways.

I know what the real problem is. I stepped away from Linux/UNIX for about 5 years because of a new job (Went from a Sun/Unix/Oracle shop to a Windows/SQLServer shop). When I got back to Linux, I didn't understand a lot of things, it had changed so much. It took a while to dig into it.

But .. know what??? It was all there. All I had to do was understand how it started up to find all the scripts and then read them. It wasn't that hard.

It just took a little effort. And enough intelligence to actually read scripts and Google things I didn't understand.

If you don't get it .. it is you.

I am not opposed to reducing pollution to a level where I can safely walk outside and breath, and fish are reasonably safe to eat.

I am opposed to reducing pollution to zero and getting rid of all the modern niceties that cause it ... like this computer that I'm typing this post on and the server that is storing it.

Everything in between is up for discussion and probably has multiple supporters and detractors somewhere.

I'll wager that almost no one disagrees that reducing pollution is a good thing.

The discussion is how much are we willing to pay or give up for how big a reduction.

Which is supported by the prior Slashdot post about how scientists and the general public are often at opposite sides of things. Those that took the poll need to reconcile their numbers with the numbers from the other poll that said most people don't believe in human-caused global warming. I find it hard to believe that if most people don't believe in it, they would only vote for politicians that supported it ....

So you would rather shaft all non-solar users by forcing the electric companies to not pay wholesale for solar providers (like they do when they buy power from other power companies) or pay retail and at least ask those using solar to help pay for the grid they are using to connect with. Thus raising non-solar rates.

So you would rather force everyone to pay more for a car than the savings in the fuel economy??

So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??

Another 'as long as I'm not required to give up anything' argument. Thanks for helping prove the point of the prior post.

Have you ever spoken to farmers?? The half dozen farmers I've talked with all say the same thing (I grew up in a small, rural community), most of them were older than 60 and had been farmers for decades. They don't have the time, money, or resources to collect, process, and store seeds, they always buy them. These guys LOVE GMO crops because of the increased yields and predictability.

It may be an extremely small sample and anecdotal, but it makes a lot of sense. I recall having small gardens growing up, and we always bought seeds every year. Plus, farmers want consistent crops every year and better yields if they can, they don't want some wild child of something they started growing 10 years ago when Monsanto has created a new product that makes more money for them.

I would think a sterile plant would be a good thing for modern farmers, who want's corn stalks popping up in a soy bean field. Farmers rotate their crops, I used to remember scenes like this growing up. I don't see them as often now.