Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Not everyone wants a simple life (Score 1) 257 257

Nothing wrong with what you describe but it won't change the world either. Some people want more out of their career than a comfortable life. Speaking for myself I've founded several companies, have run several others and I very much enjoy what I do for a living. I don't just want a basic 9-5 job with a few weeks vacation and a 401K. I want something more than that. I want to create successful companies. You aren't going to do that playing it safe or doing the comfortable easy thing.

I never said something like this was a bad thing, just that you don't push children into wanting to do something like that. Like you said, it comes from within.

Comment: Re:Inspire kids to be the next Woz, not Jobs (Score 2) 257 257

Well, you should support your child being who they are. Woz is who he is, and trying to make him into Jobs would only make him unhappy.

However, Lil' Jobs would probably not be as happy if he didn't become Steve Jobs later in life. If his parents pushed him to be Woz-like, would he have been happy? I'm not sure he would have been.

For one thing, it is easy to be super chill when you are a naturally talented engineer who finds happiness in working on projects in your garage. Some people are built with a more driving ambition to affect larger systems (used in the more general sense). They want to be executives so they can bring a grand vision to life, be it a corporation, mass movement, or an empire. Anything less will be frustrating for them.

I agree that you should try and instill values of respect and a healthy sense of perspective vs. worldly ambition in your child, but the world needs leaders too.

That's true, but realistically no one decides as a child that they will be a world leader or a CEO. Parents who drive and "prep" their kids from an early age to do so are more likely to just burn their kids out before they even get to college. Just like you said, Jobs became Jobs "later in life". Push your children to do what they enjoy, and if they have the talent and the desire to be the next Jobs, they will have the opportunity to do so.

Comment: Re:Inspire kids to be the next Woz, not Jobs (Score 3, Insightful) 257 257

Woz, God bless him, is a great engineer and a super nice guy, but he'd still be designing hobby projects for fun and maybe have a job as a high level engineer at like HP or IBM or Intel or something today without Jobs

And isn't that a better, much more realistic goal a parent should push their kid towards than founding a global tech company? Working a well paying job that allows you to live comfortably and gives you enough free time and means to do something you enjoy at home, what more could you ask for?

Comment: Re:A corrupt company stuggling. Boo hoo. (Score 1) 132 132

Exactly!

Not that many of the "not for profit" colleges aren't guilty too. But most of these for-profit colleges just don't provide much value to the students. Years ago, my ex-wife attended ITT Tech for a while, thinking she wanted to go into Electrical Engineering. The whole thing was a disaster. She wound up hugely in debt after only a couple of semesters, and eventually decided the program wasn't for her. Then, she realized the credits earned there were basically worthless, trying to transfer them elsewhere. So it was just thousands and thousands of dollars down the drain.

In their defense, they do now point out that "not all credits may transfer". To me this is just a red flag that no other school considers their classes as worth anything.

Comment: Re:BS on the Obama comment (Score 2) 132 132

" I went to get educated."

So, then you failed.

"Went to get an education" "Went for an education" "Went to be educated".

Pick one.

"Get" is a verb. "Educated" is also verb. Proper simple sentence structure is Subject-Verb-Object , not Subject-Verb-Verb

So you are essentially saying you "went to get gotten", which you evidently were.

Pedantic, I know, but anyone throwing around smack about how smart they are should know better.

Educated is also an adjective, as in "an educated person". "I became [adjective]" is a valid sentence with valid structure and "get" in the sense of the GP is a colloqial form of "become". You can "get taller", "get fatter", "get healtier". And, as I have just shown, even pedants can "get educated".

Just look at the second example here.

Comment: Re:Not really: it's stopped the USA invading. (Score 1) 393 393

The USA only wants to fight conventional wars because they have a bigger army than the next top five nations combined.

Besides being wrong on numbers, the US wants to fight conventional wars because that is what our military is designed to do. Our equipment and training is designed to slug it out with a modern, mechanized force and overwhelm them with firepower. Thats why we have tanks, fleets of jet aircraft, and a very large navy. These kinds of weapons (not including the navy, of course) are best utilized in battlefields that are large and lightly populated. A low-intesity unconventional war completely negates most of our technological advantage. An Abrams can't rotate it's turret in a densely packed urban street. Jet fighters can't loiter over an area for hours providing immidiate close air support(closest air support might be 15-30 minutes away when it is needed now) and lose effectiveness in an urban setting surrounded by non-combatants. That means combat is done mostly with boots on the ground with guys behind rifles, not armor. And if you have guys trudging up mountains or walking down alleys you can only armor them so much otherwise they can't fight effectively. This leaves them vulnerable to the other guys who only have rifles and light weapons that normally wouldn't be able to stand up to our armor but allows them to hold their own against infantry. Throughout the history of warfare unconventional combat has always favored the smaller force.

Comment: Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 393 393

Look at what has been happening to Syria, which failed to obtain nukes and didn't dare to use its large cache of chemical WMD at the critical time. They are now being dismantled to make room for the creation of a Greater Zion, one that would span from the Nile to the rivers of Tiger and Euphrates, as shown on the 10 agorot coin.

Since when is ISIS zionist? Because they are pretty much the only one's dismantling other states. Hell, Israel has a hard enough time just keeping the Palestinians in check.

Comment: Re:What price is Freedom? (Score 1) 393 393

They still hear the "Axis of Evil" speech, and would rather be North Korea than Iraq today.

If the choices are between getting torn up in what is almost a civil war because you are so insecure with your own power you can't even help arm the only groups that have been somewhat effective at stopping an armed group trying to destroy you or being on the verge of a massive famine I would just give up at that point.

Comment: Re:Dogfights?! What year is it?! (Score 2) 821 821

Because there are only 25 AC-130s in active service right now. They can only be in so many places at once, and can only support one unit at a time. A large fleet of A-10s allows for CAS for a much larger battlefield. And as for "aging A-10s", you do realize the AC-130 was introduced almost a decade before the A-10 was, right?

Comment: Re:Big giant scam ... (Score 2) 821 821

As someone who lives in one of the countries who got suckered into the F-35, this program has been nothing but lies and bullshit since it was announced.

As an American I apologize to you. The F-35 should never have been built, the money should have gone to continued production of the F-22.

Comment: Re:Dogfights?! What year is it?! (Score 2) 821 821

However, many air-air combat aircraft are pressed into air-ground roles

This wouldn't be necessary if the Air Force wasn't obsessed with retiring the A-10. But then again, maintinaing an already existing airframe is much less profitable than government contract for R&D and production runs for a new airframe, and any general worth his stars would jump at the chance to leave his mark by helming the procurement of a major weapons system.

Comment: Breach of contract? (Score 1) 242 242

From how I am understanding it, the government promised to make changes, and quite possibly was elected at least partially because of their promises. If so, that could possibly be construed as entering into a (verbal) contract, which when they fail to carry out these promises would bring them into the jurisdiction of the courts as breach of contract? This would be a great precident too, if the courts could be used to actually force politican to uphold campaign promises.

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...