In my country people are being forced into the stock market by having to pay interests to the bank for already small amounts of savings. Also politicians are pushing for building pensions on stocks. This is going to pay off big time - but not for the retirees or small investors.
This strategy would only work if "bad employers" (in this context those who will lie during the hiring process) are in the minority. Even a lying employer can still end up being a comparatively good place to work - but nonetheless - your strategy will just repeat the situation and at some point you will have to explain why you are switching all the time.
Parkinson's Law states that work is expanded to fill the available time. The law I refer to is that the time itself with work to be filled is expanded - for the purpose of requiring more human and non-human resources - which again requires expanding the hierarchy - which expands the power of those who cause this process (as the newly hired people will be added below those "managers").
Quite true. I should have italicized Parkinson's Law, the book. Parkinson spends a number of short chapters discussing the expansion of hierarchies, with historical examples.
"Congratulations Ms Smith, your 2013 taxes have provided 0.01% of the cost of a missile that was just deployed in Afghanistan!"
If we could choose how our taxes were used (a libertarian dream of mine for awhile), we'd have really lumpy funding. Hopefully it'd cause our military to be defunded, but the VA would probably end up taking the brunt of the hit.
Along those lines, I bet the funding of NASA would be even lumpier than it usually is. Don't they have difficulty planning engineering efforts because they're not sure if congress is going to continue funding next year?
Here's a thought: why don't NASA and other gov research institutes have an endowment instead? The government can add in a one-time lump sum and then periodically add the typical budget to the endowment? I imagine this would be pretty hairy though. It could be just another fund to get ransacked by congress on a rainy day, and there'd easily be controversy about how the fund was invested.
But ... would the right reaction really be to call it "terrorism"?
The question arises in context of every bearded muslim killing somebody will be referred to as "terrorism" while a white ahole killing nine people is just retarded and the whole affair considered a tragedy.
I think though that the thought process arising from this question would be to question the whole concept of "terrorism" in general. Why not in general consider people who kill other people out of hate or greed as murderers and then treat them accordingly - while skipping the whole media outcry campaigns that only serve fear-mongers and the news industry.
This report is characteristic especially when considered in contrast to the (overly?) thoughtful justification of the sentence given by a German court in the recent case around the killing of a Turkish girl named Tugce.
This report is also characteristic when considered in context of the killing spree in Charleston.
USA is a country of institutionalized hatred. Hatred seems to have become a central aspect of the national identity and culture.
Seems to be a great project - but it is intimidating being required to be awesome. Evokes pictures of myself stuck in a group of awesome people making it obvious to myself how not-awesome I am ... so I am not going ... :-(
Ah, totally see where you're coming from. Looking over the copy again, I couldn't remember why we used awesome instead of interesting, like how it's expressed in the section below. We've changed it.
Synchronisation of the password db files is accomplished by storing a master file on Google Drive (Multi-Fac Auth here). I only change passwords on Ubuntu - upload to Drive and download to Android and Company.
