Chances are your local library has a subscription to it, and you can access it from your library's online resources portal with your library card # and password, all for the cost of getting a library account set up.

Last time I checked the purchase price, a single copy of the full-text print version of the 2d edition (about twenty volumes) sold for around $11k, I believe. It might have been $18k, it has been a while. I've seen used copies of the two-volume, small print OED (requires a magnifying glass to read, but is complete) for around $100-$150. I believe its cost is justified by the nature of the beast -- it aims to be a comprehensive dictionary, a work that encompasses every word of the English language.

This is the only part I disagree with. I don't believe people have a "right to feel" anything. Had you said "they have a right to BE as safe and respected as we are" I'd be with you 100%.

And maybe that's part of the problem. A lot of human interaction, in the workplace, involves disrespect. Happens between men, happens between women. Even non-sexual disrespect between men and women can occur. But people respond differently to scenarios: what can make one person feel uncomfortable can make another feel amused and yet another feel nothing in particular at all. We can and should shape our behavior when working and interacting in groups, but using the feelings of others as our guide seems like a very poor way of going about it. Rather, developing explicit, fair standards of behavior seems to me the better way to go.

For example: do not commit violence, and do not intentionally disrespect others. If such an environment can be created --and I believe it can-- however one person might feel in an environment where they actually are safe and respected is a personal matter of their own. Claims of wrongful behavior can be reviewed using these more objective guidelines --was it violent? Was it disrespectful?-- rather than bothering with the necessarily subjective moving target of how it made someone else feel.

...if you choose school, that is. This approach finally occurred to me after I'd received my Master's and worked for a few years. I made the mistake of waiting to think about finding a job until after graduation. I did not make the same mistake when I went back for a postgrad degree. I started looking at job postings long before I started filling out school applications. This helped me determine the appropriate program and qualifications necessary for where I wanted to be. I did not stop until I'd landed a position. (Actually, I still review job postings. It's a good habit.)

If you treat your education as a years-long job search, your class selection and study habits, and extracurriculars will fall into place naturally. School debt/expese/etc is real and needs to be considered, but schools to give you access to job opportunities that you can't find elsewhere. You'll understand that your ultimate goal isn't grades, it's the job you will need to create the lifestyle that you want. And this perspective will help you make the grades needed to get there. It will also help you get cracking on everything else you'll need to get there: resume, work examples, interview practices, networking, publications (if needed), business plans (if needed), technical skills, relevant experience, industry awareness, etc.

Find out about your prospective school's career office, and determine if they are effective. Meet with a career counselor as soon as you begin. Review every aspect of your job search. Internships are the answer to the no-work-without-no-work-experience paradox. Student organization activity should be designed around those that will give you access to well-placed professionals in your field of interest. Every job and internship application should include a revision of your resume and a new cover letter -- no mass-mailing.

It also appears that this quote, reflected in the thread title, is inaccurate:

Even if the article analysis is correct, the costs would be passed not to *all* Internet consumers, but rather only those who use an ISP that has decided to peer with Netflix.

It can help to understand and distinguish between Muslims and Islamists. Islamists are the often-violent fundamentalists, similar to the "Christians" who shoot abortion providers because, ah, the sanctity of life is so precious to them.

It's perfectly reasonable to aim any number of criticisms at Islam in general as it is to any other religion. The problem here is that by overstating the target --characterizing it as all of Islam, rather than the radical and violent subsets of it-- you tend to alienate potential allies.

Something tells me that you probably wouldn't like the "intrajudicial" killing of non-US citizens all that much, either...

...because that totally would have worked. Just telling them that would have caused them to have a change of heart and divest themselves of power they've spent lifetimes accumulating.

However accurate your statements about what needs to happen might be (I think they are on the mark, if anything not comprehensive enough), who has ever responded positively to this kind of demand? To work with those who are both power-hungry and indisputably in charge of their domain, you need to appeal to their self-interest, not from your own sense of righteousness.

Too bad they tried to sneak it in. I bet there's a marketing ploy that could make horse meat burgers a profitable commodity. Haven't yet myself, but I'd really like to try horsemeat; some have said it's quite tasty. Personally I'd like to know how it compares to venison, a meat I very much enjoy.

It would be nice to have more accessible options for red meat than corn fed (or, for a premium, grass-fed) cow. I understand how fat and marbling affects flavor and texture, but it makes sense to me to train yourself to prefer healthier foods. It seems a fair assumption that horse meat will be a lot leaner than cow meat.

What a pain; you have my sympathies. Did they send you a copy of the validation, and did it otherwise satisfy the FDCPA validation requirements?

I've found that the most effective way to get these kinds of wrong-person debt collection calls to stop is to tell the collector that they have to validate the debt. (It helps to read through the entire FDCPA, so you're familiar with the details.)

This is useful because of the way these kinds of bottom-feeder debt collection agencies work. They buy packages of debts from various companies for pennies on the dollar. The agency gets to keep any money they collect from these accounts. The cheapest past due accounts will usually not have much detail: the more likely an account will be successfully collected upon, the more expensive it is. Validating a debt --which they are legally obligated to do upon request-- requires enough time and effort on their part to make most accounts unprofitable, even when they have the right person. It usually makes more sense for them to not bother further, and to move on to the next debt on the list.

And even if they *do* validate the debt, they'll have handily furnished you with proof that the debt is not yours.

One measly zig? That's not going to efficiently couple my torque rotation constant. I want a crank with a minimum of five zigs and, for fuck's sake, a bare minimum of *three* zags... and that will be the "intro" model. The "pro" crank will come with seven zigs and five zags. The "custom" option will end the zigzags with a loop.

Throw in enough, and the bike will basically pedal itself. All I need to figure out now is how to perfect my shake weight handlebars. Still having problems with the braking on those things.

Thank you for your patience. That is quite a gracious reply to someone who devolved into caps-yelling, and a humbling one.

And I will readily grant you that the Clinton administration's surplus was very much a benefit of context. And after all, those were also the days of the Newt-led House.

Disgreeing about speculations of alternate futures are probably only useful in what they tell us about how we think. There is no way either of us can ever prove what would have happened, had things gone differently. I believe that some of the more disastrous aspects of W's administration would not have been part of a Gore presidency: specifically, disregarding the reports of Hans Blix and invading Iraq, as well as combining a military increase with a tax cut. Those are not particularly complicated issues, and the political benefits are/would have been clear to Gore. At least those points seem to me much more reasonable than the thought that Gore would have led us into Iraq and cut taxes the way W did. I do believe the housing and banking crushes wouldn't have differed much, if at all.

What I suppose might be the most frustrating is how the argument against voting compares to the 2000 Florida results. Basically the idea is either that your vote counts for so little that it will not affect the outcome -- and usually this is true, for any given individual. OR the idea is that elections are so corrupted that your vote will never count at all. What I see is that: there was one time when a presidential election hinged upon nine thousandths of a percent of a single state's voter outcome, and while antidemocratic electoral manipulation is a reality (as we continue to see in Florida, still), it is not in complete control of the outcome, but rather more like a thumb on a scale that can still be overcome.

My apologies, BlueStrat. I lost my temper, and declined into a useless form of discussion. I find the thought that Gore would have given us the same world as Bush (or a worse one) so ludicrous that it is difficult for me to treat it as a seriously, sincerely, and considered point of view.

As a result, my frustration got the better of me, and my apologies to you for that. Perhaps you really do believe what you've said. If so, you clearly have an idea of how strongly I disagree with you. I regret that the expression of my disagreement probably came off more as polarizing and judgmental than it did convincing.

I will point something out *again*. In the 2000 election, Gore had 8 years of experience in the executive office, as VP under Bill Clinton. During his time in executive office, the US created a budget *surplus*. With a budget surplus, a budget debt ceiling is unnecessary. Before his 8 years as VP, Gore was a US House Representative for 8 years, and a US Senator for 8 years. He has a long, and many would say a distinguished Congressional career.

It is certainly a consistent one. His 24 years of experience in federal office before the 2000 election gave him quite a record at the time of that election.

You seem to feel that it would be more reasonable to compare Al Gore circa 2000 to someone else entirely, with only four years of Congressional experience, than it is to compare 2000 circa Gore to the 1976-1999 Gore, with 8 years as a Rep, 8 years as a Senator, and 8 years as Veep.

But yes, since Obama promised something he actually didn't but you still see as a sort of betrayal, Gore similarly would have stepped directly into what history has labeled "the Bush doctrine", he would have invaded Iraq in response to 9-11 attacks by Saudi nationals based in Afghanistan, he would have pursued financial deregulation (the same regulation he helped put into place while in Congress), he would have JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DO I HAVE TO ACTUALLY CONTINUE WITH THIS IN A REASONABLE MANNER.

VOTE, YOU FUCKING ELIGIBLE-TO-VOTE ASSHOLES. IT MATTERS, IT REALLY DOES. IF YOU HAD VOTED IN 2000, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A TSA TO BITCH ABOUT NOW. YOU DIDN'T THEN, AND THANKS TO YOU WE HAVE THE TSA. FUCK YOU FOR THAT.