Well, I suppose this is what happens when a dyslexic tries to make a submission! I thought it would be a little better then just vaguely saying 'Australia' like the BBC article. So much for that.
I probably should have just left the rubbish BBC article out all together anyway, but I didn't want to melt some poor institution's servers when most people probably wouldn't have read more then the introduction anyway. Live and learn.
Link to Original Source
Holland still has a large flower industry, and a large agricultural industry that advanced with it.
Asia certainly still has a large tea industry.
Beaver pelts, well OK, that one is dead.
Switzerland still has a large watch industry, and a large precision manufacturing industry that grew up around the watch industry.
There are always places that can do something on the cheaper, money floods in, they become the next player before someplace else becomes cheaper, and the money goes with it.
You don't have to be a Olympic athlete to be an athlete. Not every job takes the best of the best. And there are surely far more positions for management jobs then there are those both trained and naturals at it.
People just have to accept that sometimes that every person they work with will be an experienced expert, and may sometimes make mistakes now and then. A good organization minimizes them and lets people learn to do their job. A bad one manages by blame.
Some jobs of course there is no learning on the job, like doctors, engineers... generals. But that's why we save our best for that, and pay them suitably. For everything else, some people are going to just have to learn.
Besides, some people might not even know their knack until they try.
So if we pretend that the current state of Google is trustworthy, what happens if there is a management shakeup? Or they need to sell off parts of itself to make some cash? It really seems pretty silly to think that you can trust a corporation for decades when it's trust can literally be bought and sold.
It was clear from the start that what it wanted was your information, they didn't even try to hide it with their real name policy. And for the trouble they didn't really give much more then their competitors were already giving.
Yes, I think it was better from face book, but it didn't seem to have any care for any sort of privacy. So if you are concerned about your private details? Too bad. If you are in an online community that you don't care to share your personal information with? Too bad. Teenagers didn't like it, want to post where your parents won't see? Too bad.
They mentioned that they made a service that was for Google, but not for it's customers, I don't think they really still understood how deep that went. The fact that they started forcing people to join only reenforced the reality of the situation, turning something that had potential into joke.
Maybe someday someone will build a site for people the in the modern internet age, and not just for the corporation that runs it. G+ wasn't even a compromise between the two.
it's not a very popular view, particularly in the USA, as it goes against the whole "anyone can make it big" concept.
I think that is largely a mischaracterization, both by the well meaning and those looking to discredit certain notions.
I think that firstly, people by a wide margin believe that people should not be -denied- a opportunity. Particularly for arbitrary, non-relevant factors.
Secondly, many people also believe that we can, as a civilization, create opportunity. What efforts go into creating those opportunities are paid back by the percentage of them who can use those opportunities to excel.
The second one is the largest sticking point, because how to foster those opportunities is widely debated. Some feel that the best is a wide-open field. Others think that the field advantages some of those arbitrary, non-relevant factors (particularly socioeconomic one) and thus the field needs to be leveled.
It's not a debate that I mean to stir up 3-deep in a Slashdot thread, but just to say that the vast majority of people at most places on the political spectrum agree: Those that have the ability to succeed, should have the opportunity to. It's just the mechanics they disagree on that are sometimes, sadly, mutually exclusive.
And just to be clear on my point, I do not think it's something more then just something that can be given, and may even be something that can be measured.
Yes, fear of an authority figure is one motivation, or want of money, but I don't think that it's capital M Motivation.
I surely wouldn't qualify as one of the 'termites' in the study, but there still things in my life I take to quickly. There is a third metric that I am in my coming to respect even more: motivation and inspiration.
There is a big difference between having the ability to do something, having the need to do something, and having a want and drive to do something. That last one seems to get people much further then being at the very top in intelligence. It also provides a framework of interaction and social connection between peers, if it is truly a passion.
So maybe it takes being the best and brightest to be first chair violinist in a prestigious symphony, but being brilliant alone won't get you there. Meanwhile hundreds of others have a long and successful career they make out of their perseverance.
Considering the state of Android from the majority of android manufacturers, a new non-google phone without the bloat IS news.
Honestly even though I have been an android user since version 1.0, I tend not to recommend them to people just because of the crap-ware manufactures put on.
The same problem with windows vs mac. I don't think windows is really harder or easier then the mac anymore, but the hours of uninstalling bloatware from a pre-built windows machine is painful for even someone who is techsavy.
It's absolutely true that there are things that electrics are not suited for. Just as any car has it's gives and takes whether you use a car, truck,van, or whatever.
But I'm not sure what you call 'the fringes'. A huge population of people only drive a few dozen miles a day, then park their car at home over night. Almost anyone who lives with a spouse also probably is in a household with two or more cars as it is.
I don't think I know anyone who goes cross country more then once a year. The only people that even come close already own two cars, and one of them is almost always just a commuter.
So yes, maybe it's not for you, or the circle of people you know, but there is a massive segment of people who an electric would make an economical, low maintenance car for if the entry price came down.
For some people a satisfying job is an important part of their overall happiness, so even if they might be making less, still might be more fulfilled by their lives.
Of course for other people the job is just 8 hours a day they can easily partition from the rest of their lives, and don't have any such concerns.
There is no good or bad about one or the other, it's just how some people's natures are different. It is though, too important of a metric to be left out of an article like this. Graphic designers might be a good example of this. Some may be making less, but for them it might be more valuable on the balance for their mental state then the money.
Why lift a heavy reactor when you have 24/7 sunlight?
SpaceX has already said it's going to build electric engines anyway. But as someone said below, thats only good for some parts of the journey, you simply need more thrust to take off and land even if they did work in an atmosphere.
I'm going to assume that you don't think the current lineup on either side is particularly satisfying, because I can't honestly believe that you find any current candidate that compelling. You look at who may be the next US president and then look at the potential pool of people that -could- be and just think, "Wow, people are stupid." And maybe some of the choices by some of them are pretty dumb, but I think you have to look at just what is going on in the big picture of the US political system.
Having a winner take all system, means that we have a first-past-the-post system. Voting for a third party candidate means that people on a similar part of the political spectrum are diluting their vote if they vote for one or more candidates, and thus, must get in under the banner of a candidate that can win a simple majority vote. This by it's nature reduces the political process to two parties.
So despite the broad spectrum of issues, politics, and views on personal leadership, you have to vote tactically -or you will lose-. Occasionally a third party rises, but it either swamps over another party, or the established parties shifts platforms in order to pull people from the up-commer. The two big parties know this, and they put massive resources into making sure that they have far greater ability to field candidates then any third party might, only adapting their platforms when they have to. This is also why elections seem continualy so close, the parties will one issue at a time take on views in order to slowly ratchet voters one way, then he other party ratchet voters another. Voters don't elect for issues, parties have issues to gain voters.
It's absolutely, positively broken. Even if we did manage to develop a third party strong enough to take on the incumbents, it would quickly turn back into a two party system as one party would get crushed as people with opposing opinions flock to the other party to try to challenge it.
Unless somehow some outsider manages to take the stage and get people on board to truly change this one thing, I sadly, don't see any way out of it, and that outsider is surely not me. I'm neither charismatic or 'electable'. The multibillion dollar buisness of the established parties surely don't want to see it change. So yes, in 2016, I'm going to have to vote for one of the two choices given to me as the lesser evil, and i have no power to change that.