willurd

"hyperbolic scream fests"

Hyperbolic, you say?

"tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization" "culturally insensitive American douchebags"

Also, thanks US government. Because of you, this is what the rest of the world thinks of us.

Morality is such a loaded word, which is why I didn't use it. But yes, another day, another thread.

Your sarcasm is duly noted, sir.

In this case you could make the argument that it's the right thing to do because it's (I'm assuming) what you would want done to yourself.

Not everyone knows they have these rights. I remember in high school being told repeatedly that I had no rights as a minor. We never actually learned about our constitutional rights; I had to find those out on my own.

Also, people have a natural tendency toward defending themselves after being accused. Being read your rights is a reminder, in the heat of the moment, that no, you don't have to talk and you have the right not to. And your right to remain silent is important even if you're not guilty (maybe especially!). Dont Talk to Police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

I was answering the question as to whether he/she should care. If they don't already care, it's clear they have no regard for anyone else but themselves. I was giving them the selfish reason.

"My take is that people want to short circuit the justice system and I find it appalling that such a tendency is even remotely commonplace."

Agreed. The whole point of treating suspects with respect is because they are just that: suspects! Not everyone who is arrested is guilty, even if it's the military or FBI doing the arresting, and even if we need to "speed things along".

These are scary times we live in when this not only happens, but is accepted by society. People should be outraged.

Because one day it might be you who doesn't get read their rights.

Theory A has probability X of occurring. Another possibility is that theory B is what's really happening, but that has a much lower probability Y of occurring. X > Y, ergo A must be what's really going on. QED.

It's been over 10 years since we've had an impeachment. I'd say we're overdue.

Surely no sane person would wish to inflict such pain upon themselves.

"I genuinely didn't think there was still that much debate on this"

You'd be surprised. Many people will deny anything happens until CNN/NBC/Fox/Insert-Big-Media-Company-Here tells them otherwise. Because of that, we need more things like this, more sources of information we can point to and say "do you believe us now?"

Also, any time an official refuses to look into the past, in this case because it's not productive to "look backward", that's a pretty sure sign that somebody is hiding something (and this report proves it). No educated person on the planet truthfully believes that knowing and understanding the past is unproductive. Not one.

300 years in the future kids will be in school, uploading into their brains the story of how in the early 21st century leading psychiatrists and willurd independently discovered the fact that ADHD is actually a super power. Or so I imagine...

After speaking with a couple of people that have ADHD (I've never been diagnosed, though I probably would have been with my behavior and inattentiveness during my school years), I've worked up a pet theory that so-called "ADHD" or "ADD" is what allows people to hyper focus like this. Granted, of the people I've talked to, including myself, that hyper focus really only extends to things they are truly interested in, but it's real nonetheless. I found this out for myself when I got into programming (as stated above).

As for me, I've noticed the amount of time I can focus on something go down a little over the years as well, though I still occasionally get inspired and hyper focus like I used to.

Maybe you're right :) I really only have me and my best friend to go on (who is exactly like me in this regard).

"Coincidentally, you'll find that it is impossible to spend more than ~6 hours of focused time on a single type of task"

I'm not sure who did this research, but I can tell you from personal experience that this is simply not true. Maybe I'm a freak of nature but when I was first learning how to code I would hold one man hackathons in the summer from the moment I got up until deep into the night. Similarly, when I was younger and played a lot of RPGs, I would play quite literally all weekend, pausing only for sustenance and a little bit of sleep, and usually multitasking on the food part, far surpassing 6 hours of focus time.

"what are you using to measure the "volatility" you claim fiat money has so much of"

Inflation.

And 'unchanging' wasn't the best choice of words, but my point is that gold is not subject to the whims of monetary policy makers because you can't create more gold. Gold's value only changes when more gold is discovered.

Because you're comparing the value of one thing over time against the rate at which you would gain value in a different investment over time. I can see an argument for why you might say tbonds have been a better investment than gold, per se, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the necessary volatility of fiat money because it's not backed by anything of real, unchanging value. I'm talking about the purchasing power of the same amount of gold and USD over time.

You can't compare gold just sitting there with USD gaining interest in an investment for 90 years. Well you can, but then you'd be making a ridiculous comparison.

"the power of the US government backs the dollar"

How exactly is it doing that?

"The USD has the US government behind it"

What does that even mean?

Also, the US government doesn't really have anything to do with the USD; the USD is managed solely by the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve is not a branch of the US government (it's a privately held bank; look it up).

"it's not nothing"

It's worse than nothing. The Federal Reserve can and does change the value of the dollar at will (it's called inflation). That's why you can buy a loaf of bread with your 5 bucks now, but in 10 years your 5 bucks probably won't even buy a candy bar.

Contrast that with gold. In 1913 (the year the Federal Reserve was created), you could buy a house with 100 ounces of gold. 100 1913 dollars is worth roughly 2 2013 dollars, but 100 1913 ounces of gold is worth exactly 100 2013 ounces of gold, and you can still buy a house with it (100 ounces of gold is $156,740 USD; no, this won't buy you a house in New York, but it will in most other parts of the country). That's what it means for a currency to be backed by something of value. Value doesn't change.

There are a couple of digital music courses on Coursera, one that just ended (but is archived) and another coming up in October:

* Introduction to Digital Sound Design (https://www.coursera.org/course/digitalsounddesign)

* Introduction to Programming for Digital Artists (https://www.coursera.org/course/chuck101) (yep, this is for music)

Also: https://www.khanacademy.org/ (don't know how I forgot this one!)

"But unless you apply, you don't find out whether or not you could've got that position you liked.

So code some stuff up, put it online and start applying."

Nicely said!

I could see how that's the case. If you're referring to what I said, you'll note that I said nothing about my own recruiter other than that he lied to my parents to increase the chances of them agreeing to let me go, because I was a minor. Which he admitted to doing.

Added to my list, with attribution. If you're not cool with that I'll remove it. Thanks!

Yes, I absolutely agree with this. Too many people rush into life-changing decisions like this. It's also nice to hear another perspective on recruiters. Mine really did lie to my parents, however. We met with my parents, he told them one thing, then we left to go back to the recruiting office and he said "what I told your parents wasn't true, I just didn't think they would say yes otherwise".

I almost joined the navy right out of high school. I went through much of the recruiting process, but ultimately decided against it. For me, that was one of the best decisions of my life. For you, you should consider it, but give a lot of thought to it before you even start the recruiting process. Military recruiters will lie to you and your family (maybe not all of them, but it happened to me) to make sure you join and if you don't have a lot of determination to exit the recruiting process, you will likely get sucked in even if you change your mind.

I don't have a degree and I consider myself pretty successful. I'm no Zuckerberg but I haven't been unemployed since 18 (I'm 26). And, like others who've posted, I have to beat recruiters off with a stick. There is a lot of work out there if you have a good online presence.

Those are my credentials, now here's my advice: build a portfolio. And I don't mean a portfolio site or physical portfolio per se (though that would be best), I mean a body of work you've done that you can show off. All a degree really is is a piece of paper that says "I know how to do all this stuff. Contact these people and they'll vouch for me." Sure, some companies simply won't hire people without a degree, but you don't want to work for them anyway. Remember, you're smart, you're technically savvy, you're young, you're ambitious. Companies want YOU. Now, all you have to do is PROVE to companies that you can do the job. That's what a portfolio is for - it's actual, physical (or virtual) examples of your work; it's evidence that you know what you're doing. Make a blog and write some compelling articles. The blog, design, and articles are all examples of what you can do. Are you a designer? Make some icons, logos for companies that don't exist, or redesign an existing popular website just because you can do better or can offer a fresh outlook on their design (here's a guy that did this to Facebook: http://www.behance.net/gallery/Facebook-New-Look-Concept/650...). Are you a developer? Find an interesting open source project (or 5), learn it, and start fixing bugs and adding features right away. Maybe even start your own open source project (you have a GitHub account, right?!). Remember, your portfolio doesn't have to contain work you've been paid for; it can be filled with things you did on your own simply because you love what you do. My portfolio is what got me hired when I first started out (it also pays to be confident and have some good interviewing/interpersonal skills; confidence is really all about perspective, though, and is, if you lack it, something you can achieve through things like reframing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_reframing, http://changingminds.org/techniques/general/reframing.htm).

A few more things:

1. Companies aren't charities (even many charities aren't charities when it comes to hiring). They aren't there to hand out jobs to people just because those people need a job. They hire people because they have a void and believe that person can fill it. It is necessarily a mutually beneficial arrangement. You have to show companies that you are the person that can fill whatever voids they have.

2. If you don't have a resume, make one! Then put it online, on every site you can think of (LinkedIn, careerbuilder.com, monster.com, etc). If you contact me (my email is on my HN profile) I'll help you with your resume!

3. Many companies put in job descriptions that they require a 2 or 4 year degree. Sometimes this isn't really the case and, if you can demonstrate that you are the right person for the job, they will hire you anyway. This is what happened to me for my first job (it was a Fortune 500 company, so even they'll hire people without degrees sometimes!). So respond to every job description that looks interesting to you!

4. When you get an interview, and I know you will, do some research on the company before hand. Look at their website, check out what their doing, learn about their business domain, etc. If you're a web designer and/or web developer, think about ways you can improve their website and let them know you "had some ideas" while you were checking it out (don't make it seem like you didn't like their site, even if you didn't; be diplomatic about it).

5. I know I said I have to beat recruiters off with a stick; I don't actually beat them. Pro-tip #5: Don't burn bridges with recruiters. I have turned down more recruiters than I can count while at my current job because I'm not looking for work, but I always a) respond to them quickly, b) thank them for taking the time to contact me, c) thank them for considering me for whatever jobs they have available, d) let them know why I'm not available, and e) let them know that I'll keep an eye out for them if someone I know that fits one of their job descriptions is looking for work (and I mean it; I have forwarded several friends to recruiters). Sometimes I'll even talk to recruiters on the phone so they can get to know me (I always tell them up front that I'm not looking for work, but sometimes they want to talk anyway). Because of this, I have a huge list of people I can contact that might be able to help me should I find myself out of work.

I'm sure other people will have other perspectives and experiences. I hope this or something else on this page helps you!

EDIT: Also, when you're not spending time working on your resume, contacting companies and recruiters, committing to open source projects, redesigning popular websites, making logos for non-existent companies, or otherwise beefing up your portfolio, spend time making yourself better (for free!): https://www.coursera.org/, https://www.edx.org/, http://ocw.mit.edu/, https://www.canvas.net/, https://www.udacity.com/, http://webcast.berkeley.edu/, http://www.academicearth.org/, http://ocw.tufts.edu/CourseList, http://www.open.edu/openlearn/tags, http://www.cs.washington.edu/education/courses/, http://ocw.nd.edu/, http://law.duke.edu/webcast/, http://oyc.yale.edu/. There isn't much room for anything else if you're serious about this.

EDIT 2: Added udacity (thanks philwebster!)

You're misrepresenting the slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope).

  A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small
  first step leads to a chain of related events culminating
  in some significant effect.

6 strikes is neither a relatively small first step, nor is prosecuting people under it a grand leap (it's the next logical step). Slippery slope isn't a tool for dismissing any claims of cause and future effect, it is an informal rule for when claims of cause and future effect are permitted, namely when one can "demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect". In this case, "language of the agreement between ISPs and the entertainment industry" (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Six-Strikes-Official-Says... and http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Will-ISP-Six-Strikes-Incl...) clearly states that ISPs have the full authority to report 6 strikes offenders to copyright owners, should they choose to prosecute them:

  The Participating ISP will, however, continue to track and
  report the number of ISP Notices the Participating ISP
  receives for that Subscriber’s account, so that information
  is available to a Content Owner Representative if it elects
  to initiate a copyright infringement action against that
  Subscriber.

No demonstration of said process is necessary because the right by IPSs and copyright holders to engage in this very process has been clearly reserved. Not a slippery slope.