What Did You Change Your Mind About in 2007?

I like Harris' line ... by ScrewMaster · 2008-01-01 05:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Mother Nature is not now, nor has she ever been, looking out for us.

I would go further and say that, not only is she not looking out for us, but Mother Nature is a bitch.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:I like Harris' line ... by wizardforce · 2008-01-01 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who are you blaming after all? What is mother nature? I just can't wrap my head around the entity that is blamed here? Are you blaming earth for being so imperfect with all the volcanoes and earthquakes? Are you blaming yourself for continuously degrading the environment thus making it harder for you to live?

you... need to go outside more.. mother nature she "loves" you, specifically she loves to attempt to kill you at every chance she gets, that's why we develop technology to enforce the restraining order against her.

--
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Re:I like Harris' line ... by canadian_right · 2008-01-01 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Mother Nature", AKA the natural laws of the universe, doesn't care about us one way or the other. Mother Nature isn't even aware we exists as Mother Nature is NOT aware of anything. Attributing awareness to 'mother nature' is irrational.

--
Anarchists never rule
Re:I like Harris' line ... by Timinithis · 2008-01-01 06:40 · Score: 2, Funny

No, Mother Nature is a Whore....

A Whore will screw everybody...a biatch will screw everybody *but* you.

--
Sig? What's a Sig?
Re:I like Harris' line ... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-01 06:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Monty Burns: Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say "hard cheese"!
Re:I like Harris' line ... by mcpkaaos · 2008-01-01 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Attributing awareness to 'mother nature' is irrational.

You must be new around here (humanity), because that's just what we do. Almost everything we do not understand is assigned an identity, a personality, and it almost always wants to hurt you (or burn you in hell forever... out of love).

In any case...

Mother Nature is NOT aware of anything

how are you so sure?

--
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Re:I like Harris' line ... by kestasjk · 2008-01-01 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

I like the quote from Dawkins: (I forget which book, the wording may not be exactly right)

Nature is neither good nor evil, just completely and utterly indifferent

--
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Re:I like Harris' line ... by BeanThere · 2008-01-01 10:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Stop anthropomorphizing Mother Nature! (I'd add "She hates that" if it weren't so obvious :)

Seriously though, there is no such thing as "Mother Nature".
Re:I like Harris' line ... by geekoid · 2008-01-01 11:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Easy. It's not living, it is only a set of reactions. A complex set, but that is all.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:I like Harris' line ... by Fael · 2008-01-01 11:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Funny... I imagine that's what your cells are telling each other about you right now.

(Of course, cell language is pretty limited - that's probably the only words they know.)
Re:I like Harris' line ... by GoofyBoy · 2008-01-01 12:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thats what I imagine what Mother Nature is saying about us.

"THAT'S what you consider as an example of intelligence?!?!?"

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

Outsourcing actually isn't to bad by johnjaydk · 2008-01-01 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I learned that offshore outsourcing isn't to bad after all. It's actually quite an asset.

It has a disciplining effect on the entire organization since the punishment for immaturity is harsh and tangible.

An additional benefit is that it has a rather sobering effect on local know-it-all's when they see that their work is in fact inferior to what we can get from a third world sourcing partner. After this sort of ego bruising they are more ready to accept modern and mature practices.

--
TCAP-Abort

Re:Outsourcing actually isn't to bad by east+coast · 2008-01-01 06:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Congratulations on your promotion to management.

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Re:Outsourcing actually isn't to bad by caluml · 2008-01-01 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, cos people work best with the threat of losing their jobs hanging over them.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:Outsourcing actually isn't to bad by Znork · 2008-01-01 07:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

"I learned that offshore outsourcing isn't to bad after all."

And next year you'll have learned that offshore outsourcing isnt so cheap after all.

Well, maybe not next year, but the writing's on the wall; between the lackluster performance of the dollar and the (almost) pan-asian economic overheating and inflationary meltdown, as well as the young sourcing partners growing up and aquiring their own managerial fat and rigidity, you'll find the balance shifting once again.

Personally I've been overjoyed to have some foreign colleagues; suddenly there are actually people I can send work to when we are far too overloaded to do anywhere near all that needs to be done.

"After this sort of ego bruising they are more ready to accept modern and mature practices."

Yes, well, what goes around comes around. Dont expect temporary phenomena to last forever; you may find yourself in the position to have to kiss and polish those egos once again, so if I were you I'd concentrate a bit more on the positive aspects rather than gloating and fostering discontent.

Ron Paul and the war by argoff · 2008-01-01 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

I changed my mind about the war in Iraq because of Ron Paul. I was always sympathetic to the idea of bringing liberty to those overseas, but it is clear now that the source of liberty is individual choices not government ones. Ron Paul made it clear and final that the war is not helping the freedom of the people over there, and it is obviously not helping the freedom of people over here, and is directly responsible for the rise of a police state mentality in the USA, and is contributing greatly to our ongoing economic collapse. As Ron Paul once said, if we want wars all over the planet and want the government babying people from cradle to grave - then we must have an IRS and massive debt. But if we want freedom and liberty, then yes we can get rid of them.

Re:Ron Paul and the war by Wonko+the+Sane · 2008-01-01 06:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Who said anything about bringing liberty to anyone? The only thing I heard GW talk about was exporting democracy.

I'd be much happier if the US was really in the business of exporting liberty.
Re:Ron Paul and the war by moosesocks · 2008-01-01 07:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

I apologize if this comes across as a troll, but WTF do any of those things have to do with Ron Paul?

Libertarians have been tossing those ideas around forever. Ron Paul brings absolutely nothing new to the table, apart from a dose of religious insanity, and a rather hypocritical view on states' rights (a Ron Paul administration would almost certainly result in vastly larger and more powerful state governments)

Although I agree that the US Federal government needs to be cut back, we can't do so by outsourcing governmental functions to private corporations, or allocating powers previously held by the fed to the individual states. Likewise, there are a few limits to how far the cuts need to be made -- healthcare and education in the US are a joke, and there is absolutely no evidence that the private sector is willing to fill that void.

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Re:Ron Paul and the war by QRDeNameland · 2008-01-01 07:19 · Score: 3, Funny

Who said anything about bringing liberty to anyone?

Well, Cheney did say we'd be greeted as liberators. However, I believe he misspoke and meant to say we'd be greeted as obliterators.

--
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Re:Ron Paul and the war by bigstrat2003 · 2008-01-01 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

First point: secularism is no guarantee of liberty. Religion is no guarantee of tyranny... I remind you that this country was first settled by Puritans.
Second point: Ron Paul being a creationist is completely irrelevant to his ability to be a good president. Religious views have no bearing on one's ability to run the country.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:Ron Paul and the war by Grishnakh · 2008-01-01 08:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Libertarians have been tossing those ideas around forever. Ron Paul brings absolutely nothing new to the table,

Ron Paul's contribution is bringing libertarianism into the mainstream, something the likes of Harry Brown never did before.

and a rather hypocritical view on states' rights (a Ron Paul administration would almost certainly result in vastly larger and more powerful state governments)

How is that hypocritical? Paul's message is not that we need less government everywhere (though that helps), but really that we need to go back to the way the country was before the Civil War, where the Federal Government had less power, and the States had more power. That's the main message. Yes, his administration would result in larger and more powerful state governments, which is exactly the way it should be. If I don't like something at the Federal level, my vote will have virtually no effect in a population of 300+ million. But if I don't like something at the State level, it's far more feasible for me to have an effect on my State politicians in my state of 5 million, where my representatives live a few miles from my home.

For a parallel, look at modern Europe. France, Germany, Italy, etc. are all separate countries with vast differences between them, but they're all in a Union where they share the same currency, have free trade, and do some things together. This is more like what America started out as, and should return to. If California wants to create a massive welfare state, that's fine: they can tax their own citizens to pay for that silliness. Meanwhile, those of us in other states shouldn't be forced into paying for their problems.

The States need to start solving their own problems, and coming up with their own solutions that are best suited for them, instead of relying on the Federal government to make inefficient one-size-fits-all solutions for everything. I'll happily pay more taxes to my State government in return for abolishing the IRS and Federal income taxes.
Re:Ron Paul and the war by Grishnakh · 2008-01-01 08:18 · Score: 3, Informative

First point: secularism is no guarantee of liberty. Religion is no guarantee of tyranny... I remind you that this country was first settled by Puritans.

I would also like to remind people that Saddam Hussein was a secularist, as was Josef Stalin. It was only our Administration that tried to paint Hussein as being in league with the Islamists, which was obviously untrue, but it doesn't take much to make the morons who vote in America to believe in a lie.

Not that I care much for religiosity either, but let's keep our facts and history straight (after all, the Taliban were highly religious, and Afghanistan under their rule wasn't a fun place to live either).
Re:Ron Paul and the war by bigstrat2003 · 2008-01-01 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, you have the right idea, but you missed it by a bit. Religious views still have no bearing on one's ability to run the country. What you're talking about is someone letting their religious views dictate how they run the country, which is a very bad quality, but is separate from their religious views.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:Ron Paul and the war by MightyMartian · 2008-01-01 08:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Neo-cons have a rather odd view of the world and of the nature of power. They are the political equivalents of the economists of the 1920s; both essentially asserting that the old rules don't apply. In the 1920s everyone assumed that the Capitalist boom-bust cycle was over for good, that it was going to party days forever. The Neo-cons felt the same way about American power after the fall of the USSR, that the US was a hyperpower that could have nearly unlimited global influence. Iraq has demonstrated that the US is no different than Rome was in its day, a mighty military power, but not so mighty that it can't get overextended or get itself into military fiascos that have very direct political consequences.

The US now faces a 21st century with a rising China (something that clever folks have in fact been predicting for a couple of centuries) and Russia recovering from its wounds and taking back its position as a pre-eminent Old World power. Europe, despite a lot of roadbumps, is making a growing, vibrant political union, and I suspect in the long term it will become a Neo-Rome, controlling the Mediterranean.

The Neo-cons have weakened the United States at the very moment when it should have been mustering its resources to prepare for the new order. They thought they can short-circuit the historical trends, and by flying the American flag on distant lands and bringing democracy that they would retain uncontested pre-eminence. They seriously misread the reconstruction of Japan and thought that it could be a roadmap for the Middle East, to safeguard oil supplies and put in friendly powers.

It's time for Americans to start reading their history, to start understanding that the United States is not some blessed land, but is an empire like any, and that it is just as vulnerable as any in history.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Ron Paul and the war by moosesocks · 2008-01-01 08:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

How is that hypocritical? Paul's message is not that we need less government everywhere (though that helps), but really that we need to go back to the way the country was before the Civil War, where the Federal Government had less power, and the States had more power.

For a parallel, look at modern Europe. France, Germany, Italy, etc. are all separate countries with vast differences between them, but they're all in a Union where they share the same currency, have free trade, and do some things together. This is more like what America started out as, and should return to. If California wants to create a massive welfare state, that's fine: they can tax their own citizens to pay for that silliness. Meanwhile, those of us in other states shouldn't be forced into paying for their problems.

There has been *one* War within the US in the past 232 years, which came as a result of irreconcilable differences arising between the states. Given the way that most state governments work these days, I'd be terrified of handing over even *more* power to them. Europe's had too many wars to count in that same period.

Likewise, the articles of confederation (enacted before the US constitution, which gave the states an extremely high degree of autonomy) proved to be a complete and total failure. Most US states are simply too small to effectively handle their own affairs, and the differences between the states aren't nearly as the right wing would have you believe. The "culture wars" are a relatively new phenomenon, and for the most part, are completely artificial.

Even the EU strongly encourages their member nations to look out for the welfare of the other nations within the union. EU citizens wishing to attend university in another EU state can typically do so, and pay virtually nothing. This isn't even possible in the US at present, where students are either forced to deal with the education system in their own state, or take out massive loans to attend an out-of-state, or private university.

Perhaps a better (but more radical) proposal would be to create a third tier of government at a regional level to better bridge the gap between state and federal governments.

Still, I don't think that the states are in *ANY* condition to begin managing their own affairs. Ron Paul's vision for America *WILL* result in another civil war at some point down the line.

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Re:Ron Paul and the war by Wonko+the+Sane · 2008-01-01 08:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Look at Bush. He thinks that he takes orders from an invisible sky wizard.
Maybe. He might just say that to appease the type of voters who elected him. Either way, the political power of religious fanatics in this country is excessive.
Re:Ron Paul and the war by Jeremi · 2008-01-01 10:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ron Paul being a creationist is completely irrelevant to his ability to be a good president.

Really? To me it says something very relevant about his ability to reason from facts.

Religious views have no bearing on one's ability to run the country.

But creationism isn't just a religious belief, it's also a (fallacious) scientific position. How can a president deal rationally with issues such as biotechnology or global warming when he can't bring himself to accept evolution? It's like hiring an accountant who doesn't believe in negative numbers, and expecting him to do your taxes correctly. Not going to happen.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Ron Paul and the war by The+One+and+Only · 2008-01-01 11:27 · Score: 4, Informative

First point: secularism is no guarantee of liberty. Religion is no guarantee of tyranny... I remind you that this country was first settled by Puritans.
Your point is valid, but your example is not. Plymouth was the second successful colony settled by the British--the first was Jamestown, Virginia. Jamestown was settled by migrant Englishmen looking to simply settle and conquer the New World. And if "this country" includes Florida, then the Spanish colony at St. Augustine, Florida predates both by half a century. But in a purely geographic sense, "this country" was settled by Native Americans centuries before any white man set foot upon it.

Furthermore, the Puritans were tyrannical--which is why Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and other people who fell out of favor with the Puritans settled Rhode Island. In fact, the Puritans were the perpetrators of the witch hunts.

--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Re:Ron Paul and the war by svunt · 2008-01-01 16:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perhaps (no, definitely) off topic, but I've really been wanting to ask the /. crowd...I know Ron Paul votes consistently, and is a constitutionally based voter, etc, and after eight years of Bush, integrity is very important, but how did a far-right dude who doesn't believe in evolution, and wants to cut ALL federal funding for the sciences get so damn popular with nerds? I'm in Australia, so I hope he wins, because I want to see the US go back to looking after its own problems rather than creating them elsewhere, but if I were in the US, I'd be terrified of this guy.
Re:Ron Paul and the war by JavaRob · 2008-01-02 07:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

First point: secularism is no guarantee of liberty. Religion is no guarantee of tyranny... I remind you that this country was first settled by Puritans. Other posts are already discussing the Puritan thing, but I might also point out that it's very interesting to note the level of religiosity among the "founding fathers" who had so much influence on what made America successful. Remember, this was still decades before Darwin was even born (so the other option to "God made the creatures" was basically "dunno"), in a country including a whole lot of people who were more or less driven to the US because of their die-hard religious views.

Lotta those weird "deist" types in there, somehow.
Ron Paul being a creationist is completely irrelevant to his ability to be a good president. Religious views have no bearing on one's ability to run the country. It's not the *only* thing to check when making a political decision, but it's still extremely relevant.
Have you noticed how um, nonexistent GWB's rational thought processes are? Easy decisions, sure -- go with the gut! And it works. Hard decisions... uh, pray? And then go with the gut? Or just listen to my buddies?

I don't know how sophisticated Ron Paul's critical thinking is, but honestly -- any creationist has to have a serious disconnect with the real world. This is the guy we want dealing with the many science-heavy issues we have to deal with? This is the guy we want leading the US foreign policy (dealing with lots of other countries full of, holy shit, heathens and infidels)?

Sorry, but no. When he blogs about "churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance", that sounds like his religion might affect his politics.

And it's slim pickings for rational candidates nowadays, but it'd be pretty hard to convince me the Creationist is the bright spark among them.

The price of oil is still too cheap by Ranger · 2008-01-01 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know everyone is complaining that oil and gas is way too expensive. They are wrong. I used to think the same way. I saw a nice chart showing gasoline prices adjusted for inflation over a period of about eighty years. You know what? It really hasn't changed that much. It was still higher in 1981 than it is now. What has changed is a decrease in our earning power.

Proof that gasoline is still too cheap: I still see tons of Hummers, Expeditions, Navigators, Armadas, Sequoias and other mondo SUVs (aka Urban Assault Vehicles) on the road.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"

Re:The price of oil is still too cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-01 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

You may have changed your mind but it seems that you didn't learn your lesson (to look things up instead of assuming). Earning power has steadily increased for at least fifty years.
Re:The price of oil is still too cheap by bmartin · 2008-01-01 06:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

To expound on how correct you are, we're not really looking for alternative fuels in the US. It's sad; Europe (as a whole) is a much more agile entity than we are. For some reason, a dozen countries are making economic and social progress faster than a single one that has been an economic powerhouse for the past couple hundred years.

If gasoline were a more appropriate price (e.g., $6/gal), we'd see alternatives popping up. Europe has been paying that much for gas for several years now. At this rate, the US will continue to produce/consume SUV's and trucks until gasoline becomes so expensive that it makes economic sense to switch over to something else. That aside, the US gov't is promoting patent law bullshit instead of realizing that it hinders our economic progress and ties up our courts, just like the war on drugs.

The incentives for the US to stop sucking eggs aren't in place. It feels like there's nothing we can do to stop idiots like Ted Stevens from getting elected. Congress doesn't enact laws that are in our best interests and the president's a moron.

I changed my mind about wanting to live in the US in 2007. It seems worth seriously considering a move to another country or even another continent. I'm thinking about vacationing in London. Canada and the UK don't seem like bad ideas right now. There's more wrong with this country than its president.

--
"You could almost look at defense of Microsoft as a form of the Stockholm syndrome." -neapolitan
Re:The price of oil is still too cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-01 07:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

What has changed is a decrease in our earning power.... I still see tons of Hummers, Expeditions, Navigators, Armadas....

What has changed also is income disparity. A huge change. $10 million/yr CEOs of public companies didn't exist 20 years ago; shareholders wouldn't have put up with it. The CEO or even the $500K physician isn't going to give a damn about fuel prices, even at $100/gal, and if they want a Hummer they'll get a Hummer (unless they are sensitive to being perceived as crass and politically incorrect, but most aren't - they feel their money entitles them to waste 100x more earth resources than the average person). The market for multi-million dollar mansions is hotter than ever, in constrast to the housing and mortgage collapse that the rest of us are in the middle of. Meanwhile, even computer programmers are barely eking out what used to be considered a lower-middle-class existence in terms of the current value of the dollar.
Re:The price of oil is still too cheap by AhtirTano · 2008-01-01 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
A couple interesting observations about those charts.
1. From 1947-1977 (the first half covered) the mean household income (adjusted for inflation) goes from $26,322 to $51,925. That's almost double the household income. From 1978-2005 (the second half), it goes from $54,764 to $73,304. That's a little more than a 1/3 increase. So the rate at which our income is increasing has dropped drastically.
2. The further back along the time-line you go, the fewer two income households there are. So the doubling of earning power in the first 30 years of the chart was decreasingly accomplished by single individuals making more. The lesser increase in earning power in the second half is increasingly accomplished by pairs.
Re:The price of oil is still too cheap by Ranger · 2008-01-01 10:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

I predict it will hit 5/gal by the end of 2008.

I've been wrong almost every time in guessing how much gasoline will rise. I think the prices will depend on the political situation going into November. Did you notice how gas prices stabilized and remained relatively low during the 2006 election? I know people say the prices weren't manipulated, but it sure seemed to me the oil companies did what they could to help the Republicans win in 06. It didn't help. So unless there is some kind of major disruption I suspect we may see a repeat of the Fall 2006 pricing.

I've no doubt it'll hit $5 USD/gal at some point in the future, but I don't think it'll be 2008. Supply and availability are going to be the real determining factors. Until there are shortages and long lines people will grumble but they won't be up in arms.

I predict gasoline will eventually be sold per liter as prices go up and that car mileage will be listed in kilometers per gallon. It won't change anything but it'll be an attempt to obfuscate the real costs.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Re:The price of oil is still too cheap by argStyopa · 2008-01-02 02:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

"I changed my mind about wanting to live in the US in 2007. It seems worth seriously considering a move to another country or even another continent. I'm thinking about vacationing in London. Canada and the UK don't seem like bad ideas right now. There's more wrong with this country than its president."

Meh; talk is cheap. Let me know when you actually move.

I used to think like you do, about how much is farking wrong with this place and how other countries seem to 'get it' better than we do on so many issues. But then working for an international megacorp, I *do* have the fortunate opportunity for extended stays in other countries from Sweden and Germany to the Far East.

Now, with a little more maturity, I'll continue to insist that very, very many things in the US are messed up, but I'd still rather live nowhere else. I own a 3400 sq ft, 5 bedroom home (roughly 340 sqm for you Continentals) for which I paid (in 1993) $105k, on the edge of a major metro area. Everything I could possibly want - from clear, drinkably clean fishing lakes, to ample farmer's markets with locally-grown produce (4-5 months of the year anyway), major sports, drama, and commercial venues are all within 1 hours' drive (sadly, no mountains tho). Within 4 hours drive I can be in a wilderness where I have camped without seeing another person or even a contrail of an aircraft for more than a week.

And yes, our government's screwed up. But there aren't any places in the world that I can think of where a government is MORE restrained from accomplishing anything than here, and the longer I live, the more I see that is a great thing.

--
-Styopa

Linux by calebt3 · 2008-01-01 05:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

I switched from XP to openSuSE in March, and decided it was too hard to work with, to the point that I pined for Window's familiarity. Temporarily lacking an XP CD, I downloaded Ubuntu as a stopgap. And decided I didn't need that XP CD after all.

Re:Linux by calebt3 · 2008-01-01 08:19 · Score: 2, Funny

One more thing: forums kept mentioning the terminal, and I didn't have a clue what they meant by that.

Windows XP by m50d · 2008-01-01 05:59 · Score: 5, Funny

it's not *all* that bad, actually

--
I am trolling

Flying cars by Harmonious+Botch · 2008-01-01 06:01 · Score: 4, Funny

I finally realized that I was never going to have a flying car.

Re:I married! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-01 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny

In a simple ceremony I married my sweet heart with whom we'd been together for 8 years. Okay, and to keep this on topic, you've now changed your mind? Well, happy new year :)

That politicians / legislative bodies ... by HW_Hack · 2008-01-01 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

can effect any type of meaningful change.

Healthcare reform, acting on global warming, tax reform, ending a meaningless war, supporting the middle class, fighting terrorism at its roots ( in the Madrases ) and local Muslim populations (versus invading random countries like Iraq or Iran), energy independence ........ on and on

Since a teenager I've been at least tuned into the issues / politics - and would get wrapped up with one candidate or another .... now in my 50's I see that this just a bunch of horse-shit. I'll still vote (as I have since I turned 18) .... but to invest any time, money, or emotion in the political process ----- fuck that shit.

--
Its not the years, its the mileage .....

Offshoring is a non-solution to a non-problem. by sethstorm · 2008-01-01 06:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

An additional benefit is that it has a rather sobering effect on local know-it-all's when they see that their work is in fact inferior to what we can get from a third world sourcing partner. Exception, not rule. The locals will end up cleaning after the large amounts of mistakes.

It has a disciplining effect on the entire organization since the punishment for immaturity is harsh and tangible.

After this sort of ego bruising they are more ready to accept modern and mature practices. Play $DEITY somewhere else, not with workers. If one has to add fear (by offshoring) over their heads to drive a point, something is terribly wrong.

You're part of what makes people hate offshoring, you use it for fear, and not productivity.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Re:Offshoring is a non-solution to a non-problem. by nido · 2008-01-01 07:42 · Score: 3, Informative

If one has to add fear (by offshoring) over their heads to drive a point, something is terribly wrong.

You're more likely to get shot as well. Someone here once recommended Going Postal to me, and it covers such intentional marginalization of the working class, iirc.

--
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com

And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by plasmacutter · 2008-01-01 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

well, not willing to, more like "forced to" accept triple the workload they used to, resulting in fatigue around which an entire industry of pharmaceuticals arose to keep them up with stims rather than labor regulations to keep offshoring down so they can live healthy lives which involve rest and the possibility of actually speaking with and raising their kids.

and of course they have to accept the erosion of their middle class status to the point they will never ever retire and can't ever afford a house.. "as the rents go up, and job opportunities go down"

yes i'm sure our descent into third world status will "only" harm the "immature"

and where do you get off declaring what is and is not mature? did it ever occur to you that you may be the one who isn't mature. Usually the ones who believe themselves far enough above others to pronounce judgment are themselves the fools.

But yeah, go ahead and support the destruction of the middle class for your twisted sense of self righteousness regarding other people's maturity.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!

Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by maeka · 2008-01-01 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

But yeah, go ahead and support the destruction of the middle class for your twisted sense of self righteousness regarding other people's maturity.

I would argue it is not destroying the middle class, so much as moving the middle class.
Welcome to the global economy.
There is going to be a painful transition period while the former third world achieves what they have not had for so long.
Blame the old status-quo on imperialism, blame it on racism, blame it on whatever you want. Regardless, the world is becoming an increasingly level playing field - finally.
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by plasmacutter · 2008-01-01 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't call the shipping of jobs to nations with no standards for labor or human rights a "movement" of the middle class.

It is right to call it the destruction of the middle class.

They dont gain our standard of living, but we lose our standard of living.

Painful transition my arse, it's called corporations raping our nation and leaving us for dead while spineless politicians let them.

It's called the renewal of the gilded age because spineless politicians let them.

It has nothing to do with labor competition either. Studies show again and again that the education of so called "skilled labor" in other nations is not nearly the quality those in industrialized nations receive. They are not nearly as competent as workers, all they are is cheap labor to be exploited both for their work and to leverage americans into gilded age poverty.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by maeka · 2008-01-01 07:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

They might not gain "our standard of living" but they (as a whole, I'm not going to argue individual cases) a better standard of living.
Without an influx of money and the growth of leisure, there never will be political reform, IMHO.
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by plasmacutter · 2008-01-01 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have no compassion for their "growth of leisure" when we have none.

We are at the point where we have our "leisure" from ages 1-18 and after that we never see any extended periods of "me time" again.

compare this with 50 years ago when people could come home and kick back, now we are expected to work 18 hour days, 6 of them off the clock thanks to obscene deadlines and quotas.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-01 09:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Someone with nearly 2000 comments on a newer (900,000) era /. account is claiming they don't have any leisure time?
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by R2.0 · 2008-01-01 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

"compare this with 50 years ago when people could come home and kick back, now we are expected to work 18 hour days, 6 of them off the clock thanks to obscene deadlines and quotas."

No, SOME people could comehome and kick back - the upper-middle and upper class. Lower middle and lower class folks have ALWAYS had to work their asses off, mainly at shit jobs, for long hours and low pay.

You are pissed because jobs that USED to produce an upper-middle class lifestyle don't do that anymore. Guess what - that kind of stuff happens all the time. Everyone here rails against the **AA's for not recognizing a failing business model, but somehow thinks individuals should be immune from those same rules. Why?

IT jobs used to be a good path to the upper middle class; now they are not. Same with factory jobs. Welcome to reality.

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by Seumas · 2008-01-01 10:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

The original parent says that part of the effect of outsourcing is that it sobers employees up so they'll be more malleable and pliable to executive whim instead of demanding unreasonable things like (at least) cost of living increases.

Coming from a company that has had more layoffs than I can remember since 2000 (each taking about three to ten thousand people with it), I can tell you the changes I have witnessed in the local employees.

The change is that many are no longer excited, hard-working, enthusiastic, imaginative employees who love their job and their employer and feel pride in supporting their brand (as if it were a sports team, even) and look forward to their daily work and how it progresses them toward their own personal dreams as well as their professional aspirations to climb the ladder internally.

Instead, I find many who have been around for a very long time and feel demoralized, devalued and are in constant fear that they are going to be axed in the next round. Especially since there has often been little rhyme or reason to the people chosen to be dismissed. Most seem certain that THEY are next. And if not NEXT, then not soon after. And if it is inevitable, then why bother putting 110% of your energy and effort into it? I've seen formerly enthusiastic, extremely hard working, very intelligent, creative, productive, fantastic people become shells of themselves that mirror what I see when I'm standing in line at Carl's Junior and peeking into the back with the defeated fry-cook who feels he's just an automated process passing the minutes until he can clock out and go home.

If that's the sort of sobering result you want, may the fates have mercy on whatever company *you* (the original poster) run.
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by plasmacutter · 2008-01-01 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone here rails against the **AA's for not recognizing a failing business model, but somehow thinks individuals should be immune from those same rules. Why?

There is a key difference in your fallacious comparison.

The **AA is a failing business model, not a way of life.
This implies another business model can take the place of the **AA

This is not the case with offshoring.

The middle class is not a business model pal, it is the american dream.
IT jobs used to be a good path to the upper middle class; now they are not. Same with factory jobs. Welcome to reality.

This is different from normal "structural unemployment" usually seen with advances in technology disrupting the normal order and giving rise to a new one.
In such a case people can retrain and reasonably expect to regain their investment in that training.
Offshoring doesn't work that way. They take one sector, people retrain for another, and then that one is pulled from under them before they can recoup the training costs, and the cycle goes on and on until people say #$@ it.

So..
years of college education no longer get you into the middle class
factory jobs no longer get you into the middle class
and.. theyre even offshoring Ph.D. level R&D to places like china

so.. if no education, considerable education, and extremely high education all get you nowhere, exactly where is anyone's motivation to do anything?
Exactly how is the american dream to survive without government officials putting their foot down?
This isn't about simply being selfish either. Without a middle class consumption goes down, company sales drop, the US gdp drops. Maybe some other nation picks up the slack, but not before massive depression which impacts all other nations tied heavily to our economy. And of course, it all ends with the US as a third world nation.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by WrongMonkey · 2008-01-01 11:58 · Score: 2, Informative

50 years ago the middle class household had:
~900 square foot home
1 car
1 small TV
a refrigerator and a couple small appliances
No computer, no video games, no cell phones, no cable TV
If you are willing to accept all those conditions, I'm sure you can afford some more free time. If you want more material wealth than 50 years ago, then don't complain that you have to work harder than 50 years ago.
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by kklein · 2008-01-01 13:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm an academic, and the single biggest reason is that I'm a workaholic and if the place didn't almost shut down for 4 months of the year, I'd work myself to an early grave. As it is now, though, I work my ass off 8 months of the year, and 4 months of the year I'm blessed and cursed to be able to get almost nothing done (well, nothing that requires the organization). It's been very good for my health and mental well-being, if not necessarily for my wallet.
Over the last summer break, I spent about a week staying with my friends who work at a major IT company as developers. I saw their lives, and was envious. They make a lot more money, they come home earlier, and it is virtually impossible for them to work at home, so they don't. "Damn," I thought, "I really did pick the wrong career." But then I noticed something: I was staying at their house in a different country from where I live for a week, and that was just one week out of about 7 or 8 in a row that I didn't have to report to work. I was still getting some things done on the laptop, but that had much more to do with my workaholic nature than necessity. "Damn," I thought, "maybe I picked the right career after all."
The point I'm trying to make is that you are ultimately in control of your time. You are. Really. It's your time. Your life. If you feel that you are losing it to a company, and the money isn't worth it, you need to change gears. It's not their fault. It's your fault for doing it.
Now, this decision will most certainly result in a decrease in income. It may mean you aren't buying a house (if you're in the US, this is a terrible time to buy anyway--wait for the market to really crash first--and if you already bought, you have my sympathy), it may mean that vacation is usually spent on the couch instead of on the beach. It may mean you will be hanging on to your old car and just keeping it going until it dies. It means you don't get the "American Dream" kind of life people in my generation seem to somehow feel is necessary. BUT, you will get your life back.
Depending on who you are as a person--whether you value money or time more--this may or may not be a viable lifestyle choice. But the choice is there.
Finally, however, I want to address this idea that we work harder than our elders. I think that is really only the case on Leave it to Beaver. In talking to my parents, both of their parents worked. Mom got home earlier than Dad (schoolteachers in both cases), but Dad (a lawyer on one side and a shopkeeper on the other) got home late. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I really think that we have too rosy a view of our elders' lives. In my own parents' case, they run a business that is attached to the house, so they were around a lot, but were also usually working. When my dad had to go out, which was/is almost every day, he didn't come home until late (8-9). He also gets called out to truck wrecks (independent insurance adjuster specializing in the hard stuff that companies hire a third party to handle) in the middle of the night fairly regularly, and might not come shuffling back home for 18 hours, after dealing with cops, insurance companies, grief-ridden truck drivers, and the survivors of the family they just killed. That being said, there are down periods with little work and no money, and I grew up being pulled out of school during those periods to drive around the country and learn things. My parents basically made the same choice I did. Time is more important than money.
Further, think of the Depression generation! They didn't work because there wasn't any. Lots of time, but absolutely no money. If they did work, it was long hours in a dusty field. And before that? The agriculture- and manufacturing-based economy. The ag business is still crazy hours (grew up in a little town--had lots of friends who were farm kids and grew up working), and the only reason manufacturing went to 8 hours a day is that in the 20s factories were literally working people to deat
Re:And of course.. theyre also willing to accept.. by phantomcircuit · 2008-01-01 18:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

The real problem is that there isn't a real middle class; there are the rich, the poor, and the well off poor. To say that the well off poor are the "middle" class is grossly overstating the amount of money they have.

religion by wizardforce · 2008-01-01 06:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

I changed my mind about religion, ironically it was because I started going back to church that I realized I didn't believe any of it.

--
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.

Re:religion by GWBasic · 2008-01-01 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

I changed my mind about religion, ironically it was because I started going back to church that I realized I didn't believe any of it.
I realized that a large group of people like getting up on Sunday mornings to sing songs and look at each other's fancy clothes. I realized that religion is more of a social thing then a belief.

I realized that people fear things like the earth being round, or the earth orbiting the sun, or evolution, because they're afraid that such knowledge will destroy their ability to get up on Sunday mornings and sing songs.

I realized that far too many people let emotion get in the way of logic.

--
No, I will not work for your startup
Re:religion by InvisblePinkUnicorn · 2008-01-01 13:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I realized that far too many people let emotion get in the way of logic."

Your emotional urge to follow logic no matter where it goes is something you should examine more closely.

-- A fellow atheist.

I changed my mind about the music business by illectro · 2008-01-01 06:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

At the start of the year I still thought the big labels hadn't figured out to work with the internet and were going to litigate my favourite websites into submission, but they've finally got it and made deals instead of suing potential business partners. At the start of the year I was steadfast in my opinion that music labels were going to collapse, by the end of the year I've got the feeling that they might just make it through.

Re:Am I the only one.. by damburger · 2008-01-01 06:36 · Score: 2, Informative

They are in fact cousins.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?

Re:I married! by caluml · 2008-01-01 06:42 · Score: 2, Funny

That sounds like you and someone else had been together with your sweetheart for 8 years. What does the 3rd person think about your marriage?

--
Get your own free personal location tracker

Impeachment. by Hamster+Lover · 2008-01-01 06:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

At the start of 2007 and after a Democratically controlled Congress was sworn into office I was of the opinion that impeachment should be off the table while Congress got down to some real business with a President that recognized the winds of change. I couldn't have been more wrong.

Re:Changed my mind about the future of the US. by damburger · 2008-01-01 06:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Ron Paul is a dangerous fad. He does not believe in evolution and he wants to scrap what little healthcare the poor in the US have access to (bear in mind that the US already has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than European countries that spend less per capita on healthcare). His platform is yanking away what little social protections exist in the US so that the middle classes can pay less tax, and considering that the US isn't nearly as far from mass famine as you would think a developed country would be - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7148880.stm - its a recipe for a Katrina-like failure on a far bigger scale.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?

Third Party by iknownuttin · 2008-01-01 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now I don't know how to lean.

Why not third party?

I'm a Government conservative and a social liberal (I think we should stop violating the Constitution, get rid of the IRS, stop these stupid wars, religion doesn't belong in Government, I don't give a rat's ass who you sleep with, and I don't see why gays can't get married). I vote third party and if there's not third party candidate, I abstain with the naive hope that the politicians will notice somehow.

--
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.

Environmentalist and VideoGame Nuts and Linux Fans by Hercules+Peanut · 2008-01-01 06:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

1. O.K. I believe in global warming now. I heard a lot of dissenting evidence but it appears to be tainted.

2. Video Games do affect behavior in many children. Studies and family members in the field of education with years of observational experience have made me switch my opinion. I'm still not a big fan of government intervention on the subject, though.

3. Linux is ready for the desktop thanks to the EeePC. In fact, much of open source appears to be ready to eliminate the needs or even desire for a commercial alternative. Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox. I no longer feel like I'm having to settle for second rate in order to save money. I'd actually choose them even if the alternatives were free.

4. Slashdot is moderated largely by hypocritical children who will mod up popular opinion and mod down unpopular posts regardless of accuracy. I predict the slow demise of Slashdot as the comments area, a once fertile land of discussion and intelligent observation becomes a members only arena linux/mac fanboys and video gamers who can't envision anyone else's opinion being right other than theirs. It will be a place where where speaking ill of religion, republicans or windows will be given an automatic +2 informative while speaking ill social web sites, video games, or modding practices will be an auto -2 troll.

All four are great discoveries and lifestyle changes for me.

Happy New Year.

Re:Republicans by Oligonicella · 2008-01-01 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Same time the Democrats did.

Doublethink by aldheorte · 2008-01-01 06:59 · Score: 2, Funny

I didn't change my mind, I just rewrote my past comments.

What is war good for? by Scrameustache · 2008-01-01 07:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

I was always sympathetic to the idea of bringing liberty to those overseas Which is why that emotionally potent oversimplification was used.
Not because it applied, but because it would make you agree.

Why are they killing people? For liberty! We like liberty, so it makes it okay to kill people: it's for something we like!

--

You can't take the sky from me...

I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by rthille · 2008-01-01 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

In early 2007 I thought I might be able to vote for Ron Paul against certain Democrats if it came down to that (unlikely).
After learning more about Dr. Paul: that he hasn't felt the need to educate himself about the scientific facts about evolution and rejects it, though wasn't willing to raise his hand during the televised debate where the candidates were asked that question; that he calls abortion "Murder"; and, most critically, that he wants to remove the ability of the federal government to intervene in violations of chuch/state separation.
If the founding fathers got nothing else right with our country, they got the separation of church and state right. Integrating religion and state power is a sure path to tyranny.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/

Re:I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by jeremiahbell · 2008-01-01 08:07 · Score: 4, Informative

In Ron Paul's system of philosophy the federal government has no authority over education so he is no threat to the acceptance of Evolution. He also believes that abortion should be decided by the states because he rightly states that the federal government does not have the authority. He will do nothing to stop abortion, all he will do is follow the the tenth amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.").

If you believe the federal government should be involved in abortion law and education then amend the Constitution.

Also, on the separation of church and state, read the first amendment, it addresses congress. My state Constitution has provisions for separation of church and state, and a state violation should be dealt with at the state level. If I wanted the federal government to have the authority to address a state level violation of separation of church and state I would, and if you wanted you should, ask for an amendment to the Constitution to allow such.

P.S.--I'm an atheist.

--
"Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
Re:I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by Sigismundo · 2008-01-01 08:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Another thing that bothers me about him is the support he is getting from the white nationalist community.
Re:I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-01 09:26 · Score: 2, Informative

If you believe the federal government should be involved in abortion law and education then amend the Constitution.

Maybe you should tell that to Ron Paul, who has repeatedly sponsored bills to ban abortion on the federal level, despite his hypocritical rhetoric otherwise.
Re:I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by Lord+Ender · 2008-01-01 09:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

No educated person could ever vote for Ron Paul, and his knowledge of biology is an embarrassment to all those who hold the title "Doctor." A medical doctor who doesn't understand the most fundamental principle of biology is a shame on his school.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by 75th+Trombone · 2008-01-01 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

What the crap does it matter whether a doctor understands evolution? Doctors deal with the way people's bodies work today, and I couldn't care less what they think about how they worked millennia ago or how they got here.

Evolution may be the fundamental principle of biological history, but that's only one facet of biology as a whole.

--
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Re:I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by General+Wesc · 2008-01-01 11:00 · Score: 2

You apparently don't understand what evolution is. It does effect us every day, especially in medicine. Any doctor who doesn't understand and accept how bacteria evolves is not qualified to take care of his own health, let alone anyone else's.
Re:I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by stewbacca · 2008-01-01 13:22 · Score: 2

He wouldn't do anything to stop abortion? He's fully on record stating he'd do everything in his power to eliminate abortion. I guess voting him President would be the best thing we Texans could do then, to assure he loses his right to legislate abortion in his home state.
Re:I changed my mind on Ron Paul... by nomadic · 2008-01-02 04:28 · Score: 2

You've heard someone say "I don't believe in evolution," where it's obvious they mean that humans evolved from single-celled life forms, and then responded as though they were saying they don't believe in the evolution we observe today!

It's the same evolution.

This morning, about 12:01 AM... by LynnwoodRooster · 2008-01-01 07:12 · Score: 2, Funny

I finally changed my mind that 2007 will be the Year of Linux on the Desktop...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Re:Republicans by meringuoid · 2008-01-01 07:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Barack's a Muslim

No he isn't. A quick search reveals that he is a member of something called the United Church of Christ. This does not appear to be a Muslim denomination: the clue's in the word 'Christ'.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.

I changed my mind about myself by gr8dude · 2008-01-01 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

It happened so that 2007 was a year in which many things went wrong, and I was really upset with my [lack of] performance. However, on December the 31st I concluded that everything can also be interpreted as good news, because after analyzing the failed projects, I noticed that the bottleneck was in me, and not in my colleagues, friends, or the environment.

In other words, things are [relatively] simple now, because I only have to focus on myself (there is no need to "change other people" or "alter my environment", etc). Of course, this may also be nothing but lying to myself and trying to excuse the poor results of 2007 :-) 2008 will tell.

--
The saddest poem

Emotion by otomo_1001 · 2008-01-01 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

This will probably be out of place here amongst the /. crowd. But I met the absolutely most beautiful woman on the planet, inside much more so than outside this year. And the whole experience changed me and my mind on the value of emotion in general. I am still dealing with the fallout from realizing I have been an emotional equivalent to a black hole up until now.

It used to be hard to say stuff like that, even to myself. But not any more, personal growth is always a good thing to achieve. And no she wasn't a girlfriend or anything like that either before anyone asks.

Oh and tv. It is now almost entirely out of my life, to be replaced by real life things like skydiving and adrenaline rushes. :)

Re:Emotion by Fantastic+Lad · 2008-01-01 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

I am still dealing with the fallout from realizing I have been an emotional equivalent to a black hole up until now.

This is happening to a lot of people these days, men in particular. --My own version of it, (and I always thought I had a solid connection with my emotional side), happened during the Katrina disaster. I was utterly and unexpectedly overwhelmed with emotion for several days to the point of not being able to function socially at all; it was like I could feel the fear and pain of all those people all at once. --In the past, I would easily have been able to observe such a massive tragedy with detached interest. I was really stunned by the whole episode. Something was blasted open inside me, and it took most of six months to figure out how to live with the new awareness. I don't doubt that it was a good thing, but it was a very difficult process to go through!

-FL

Re:Outsourcing actually isn't too bad by johnjaydk · 2008-01-01 07:28 · Score: 2, Informative

It may not have been obvious in my original post but there are two parties who needs to wise up. The ones who gets punished harshly (and quite visibly) is management. They get into a lot of hot water when cost and schedule spirals out of control due to their dick'ing around. The sourcing partner makes this stuff painfully visible.

That the local developers gets 'inspired' a bit is a secondary effect. It's not like their job is in danger since we're hiring like crazy. It's mostly management who's in hot water now and needs to wise up fast. This is poetic since they were the ones who started this outsourcing business.

I might be pompous but I sure as hell can spot both immature practices (by the organization) and developers who needs to get out of the 80's. I get solid CMMI 5 stuff from the sourcing partner. Some of our own stuff looks pretty pathetic in comparison.

--
TCAP-Abort

Re:Environmentalist and VideoGame Nuts and Linux F by diablovision · 2008-01-01 08:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Happy New Year 2002!

--
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.

Recycling is not necessarily better.... by KPexEA · 2008-01-01 08:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Penn & Teller's Bullshit! was very eye opening in regards to their episode on Recycling. Up until that point I thought that recycling was actually doing some good but after watching the show it looks like a lot of it is worse for the environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit!

Re:Ron Paul by Fantastic+Lad · 2008-01-01 08:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

I like Ron in that he's honest and earnest. You don't see very much of that in politics these days. However, I don't care for his conservative take on healthcare. That doesn't make sense to me.

The way I see it, one of three things can happen. . .

1. He'll be elected, and it'll be some form of, "Meet the new boss".

2. He'll be another also-ran, soon to be forgotten.

3. He'll board a small plane.

-FL

Utter Rubbish by Khomar · 2008-01-01 09:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ron Paul has repeatedly said that some of his personal heroes are Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi -- very odd choices for a white supremacist. He also said in an interview that he would consider someone like Walter Williams, a black economist, as his running mate.

The article posted has long since been dismissed as the writing of a ghost writer that was subsequently removed from his staff. His public life of service has shown no other evidence of any racism beyond this single article from the early nineties as was covered in Free Market News

From that article is the following quote by Ron Paul:

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees - while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

It really is amazing that in 10 terms in congress and being in the public spotlight for 30 years, this is the only thing that the media can dig up against Ron Paul.

--

I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

Re:Changed my mind about the future of the US. by FiloEleven · 2008-01-01 09:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ron Paul is a dangerous fad. He does not believe in evolution So what? His beliefs also prevent him from trying to force others to follow them.

and he wants to scrap what little healthcare the poor in the US have access to (bear in mind that the US already has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than European countries that spend less per capita on healthcare) Point taken.

His platform is yanking away what little social protections exist in the US so that the middle classes can pay less tax Wrong - his platform is personal liberty, one of the ideals that this country was founded upon. I happen to be a Ron Paul supporter, though I'm not convinced that all of his ideas will work as he thinks they will. Here's the thing though: I would rather have him championing my freedom, scaling back our massive government, and causing some problems with health care than have the same old shit go another round. We're not in great shape as a country, as any liberty-minded person will tell you. If Ron Paul can succeed only in tearing down a lot of what's been built up, leaving the possibly more difficult job of finding a better solution to someone else, I'm satisfied with that because something will finally be getting done.

--
Your brain is not a computer.

Changing Minds? by Kipper+the+Llama · 2008-01-01 10:24 · Score: 3, Informative

The following are my personal notes on the article, written and organized as I read it:

This is a really good article, though like past years, you can know the general lean (political, philosophical and scientific) of the participants before you begin. However, there are always answers that go up against the grain, and these are the ones I find most interesting. Some of the answers are pretty fascinating, like this one from Joseph Ledoux:

Like many scientists in the field of memory, I used to think that a memory is something stored in the brain and then accessed when used. Then, in 2000, a researcher in my lab, Karim Nader, did an experiment that convinced me, and many others, that our usual way of thinking was wrong. In a nutshell, what Karim showed was that each time a memory is used, it has to be restored as a new memory in order to be accessible later. The old memory is either not there or is inaccessible. In short, your memory about something is only as good as your last memory about it. This is why people who witness crimes testify about what they read in the paper rather than what they witnessed.

What's so fascinating about this answer to me is that it is something that's been clear to me, upon reflection, for many years. I have a clear "memory" of my second birthday, even though this is a time from which most persons don't have memories. Now, it's known that that being able to form sentences early (which I was able to do) helps in the creation of memory; being able to "narrate" thought allows us to construct some sort of record of events better. However, around the age of 11 or so, I began to realize that I was not remembering the event so much as my prior recollection of it. This meant I began to be very careful about my use of memory and how much I trusted my own mind, which I know to play tricks on me at times. It's known that, even for a mentally well person, a long-held falsehood can become true for the person simply because they create a memory of the false event. Also, philosophy has been aware of the importance of this sort of trick of the mind for some time. It's interesting to see science just now approach it, and it is instructive in how scientific paradigm (e.g., that memory functions like a hard drive) can override the obvious conclusions of self-reflection.

A lot of the answers touch on classic issues in the philosophy of science, a field some scientists love (most geologists, theoretical physicists) and others hate (most biologists). Karl Sabbagh's answer about expertise is right and wrong in equally interesting measures (yes, one should not trust experts unguarded, but, no, your judgement is not as good as an expert's in an area of their expertise, per se). Piet Hut's answer about explanations is sort of trivial for anyone who knows philosophy of science, but a good example of the problem (or explanation--hah!) for the neophyte. Colin Tudge's answer about the limits of science is simillarly instructive and worth repeating (in part):

I have changed my mind about the omniscience and omnipotence of science. I now realize that science is strictly limited, and that it is extremely dangerous not to appreciate this.
Science proceeds in general by being reductionist. This term is used in different ways in different contexts but here I take it to mean that scientists begin by observing a world that seems infinitely complex and inchoate, and in order to make sense of it they first "reduce" it to a series of bite-sized problems, each of which can then be made the subject of testable hypotheses which, as far as possible, take mathematical form.
Fair enough. The approach is obviously powerful, and it is hard to see how solid progress of a factual kind could be made in any other way. It produces answers of the kind known as "robust". "Robust" does not of course mean "unequivocally true" and still less does it meet the lawyers' criteria -- "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". But robustness is pretty good;

my (ex) wife by passthecrackpipe · 2008-01-01 10:26 · Score: 2, Funny

got my divorce sorted out on christmas day. about time as well. crazy bitch was getting on my nerves

--
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Re:Changed my mind about the future of the US. by 75th+Trombone · 2008-01-01 10:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

he wants to scrap what little healthcare the poor in the US have access to (bear in mind that the US already has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than European countries that spend less per capita on healthcare)

So if they spend less on socialized healthcare than we do, yet they're doing better, then obviously the amount we're spending is not the problem, and perhaps if we spent less and changed some things at the same time, maybe our situation would get better.

--
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.

Re:Republicans by chis101 · 2008-01-01 11:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm still confused as to why him being a Muslim would be such a bad thing if it were true?...

What did I change my mind on? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-01 14:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I changed my mind on the way I influence things:

I am lving in a foreign Asian country. Whether from my upbringing or my natural principles, I believed in being very passive
in terms of how I influence a foreign culture. My original point of view was that I should fully respect ALL
of the foreign culture as a macro entity, and never complain about or try to change things at a micro level. This is very important IMO. You should not take yourself too seriously in life. We are all tiny grains in this universe. But, we should remember that we are part of mankind ( a sligtly bigger grain in the universe) and that our everyday decisions and influences do add up each day. Collectively if something changes, it is often as a result of the efforts of many people - not just one person. I believe in people power so long as we are not all sheep. We should be able to lead ourselves. My point is that we have to be careful with our influennces and desire for change:

My original point of view was that 'If I change things at a micro level, then maybe I will affect the whole macro entity.'

My point of view has changed a little. I still believe it's wrong to try and influence or change someone elses culture,
but you should complain or influence things a little. This is because if we don't, we deny our human spirit.

It's natural for a spirit to want to participate, and be involved in the society they live in as a minority.

So, I am a minority resident in S. Korea. Now, I use my voice a little more.

Re:you are quite ill infomed by damburger · 2008-01-01 14:55 · Score: 2, Informative

I am just stunned someone who compared the NHS with the Nazi party got modded 'Insightful'.

Now its my turn to correct your laughably misguided information. I live in the UK, and I have been both a patient and an admin worker for the NHS. I thus have in depth knowledge of one of the largest 'socialised' healthcare systems in the world.

It works fine. When it does fuck up, its normally because they've been forced to use an outside contractor for something (MRSA wasn't really a problem until some genius in Whitehall suggested we get private contractors to clean hospitals). It hasn't ruined our economy or spawned a fascist regime as your inherited republican wisdom would suggest.

May I kindly suggest that until you can educate yourself beyond the editorial section of Soldier of Fortune you quit posting on slashdot and go back to sitting on your porch, cleaning your guns and chewing tobacco.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?

Re:Republicans by blackpaw · 2008-01-01 15:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Barack's a Muslim

Um - no he's not. But even if he was - so what?

Engineers have lost control of the IT departments by shanec · 2008-01-01 17:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Engineers have lost control of their IT departments. In truth, this might have happened long ago, but as the topic suggests, I've just come to that conclusion this (now past) year.

For a long time now MBA's, and management types in general have struggled to understand, cut costs, and in general quantify something that is not quantifiable. After all, if a system administrator does their job correctly, you never know they're doing their job at all.

So the management types end up coming up with obtuse questions for which they expect hard answers. How many trouble tickets a day should a system administrator be able to close? Why didn't you have a "satisfactory" response from the end user when you closed the ticket? What justifies "spending extra time" on a problem? Why wasn't something done to prevent the problem?

These are all arbitrary questions that can't be answered with simple solutions. More importantly, these are all arbitrary questions that can't be quantified. They don't fit well into a spreadsheet. They don't take into account being woken up in the middle of the night, and prodded for an answer. They don't take into account carrying a pager 24/7. They don't take into account someone saying something to you in a hall way, and expecting you to remember it like your life depends on it. And they certainly don't take into account the basic fact that computer administration is an art, not a science.

So the MBA's of the world have started "laying down the law." Everyone must start work at 8AM, no exceptions (we don't care when you were paged). You must track all of your time spent through out the day (no potty breaks for you!). You must close X amount of tickets a day. You must carry on doing the work of the department, even though we have cut half the positions in an attempt to bolster the management bonuses. You must keep abreast of all current changes in technology, in your personal time. You will be expected to be able to answer about any new technical matter, but you can not spend work time learning about it, unless it was approved in writing first.

System administration in the way that I know it, having grown up in Bell Labs (literally), will go the way of the computer operator. There will be set shifts. There will be a union. There will be no creativity. Everything will be done in an organized fashion, and signed in triplicate.

No exceptions.

Re:What did I change my mind on? by Wordsmith · 2008-01-01 18:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

People tend to treat culture as if it's some holy system deserving of respect. Culture is a label slapped on the status quo of an arbitrarily defined subset of people at any given point - and is constantly in flux. If your own sense of logic and decency say something's right, then try and convince others - those others are people to, and as such are capable of deciding whether they want to incorporate your ideas into their lives. Don't worry so much about contamination. It's really a non-issue.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with respecting the existence of traditions and subjective preferences - but there's also nothing wrong with introducing your own previously foreign experience into the mix.

Of course, it sounds like you're beginning to come around to that view. Don't be afraid to go all-out with it.

Re:Ron Paul by Fantastic+Lad · 2008-01-01 18:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think we should expect more from our politicians - like being honest and sane.

Agreed. His up-front position on health care and indeed, his belief in a totally mercantilist approach to running a country is crazy. I've visited a number of states which allow the spirit of competition to dictate even simple things like zoning laws, and I must say having seen chemical factories leaking across the street from kindergartens and gun shops in largely residential areas offered just about the most intensely insane experience I've ever had the misfortune of living through. --And the people living there for the most part didn't even have the perspective to realize that the reason the levels of fear and anxiety, (which were right through the roof by contrast to where I live in the Great White North), were directly related to this sort of misguided belief in some kind of half-baked Darwinism. The reason we don't live in the jungle anymore is that we have evolved the ability to make rational decisions and to set order in places of chaos. If people refuse to use their ability to do this, then maybe they deserve to revert to living like savages in a kill-or-be-killed jungle environment which ruthlessly punishes everybody but that very small percentage occupying the top rung of the food chain. --And people wonder why there are such high rates of violent crime in the U.S. Seemed pretty obvious to me. I was glad to get out of there.

If somebody grafted Ron Paul and Michael Moore into one politician, then maybe there would be some hope for the U.S., but as it stands, it's just heartbreaking to see Ron Paul as the one guy in the running who is sparking real hope in so many people.

-FL

Richard Dawkins by sherriw · 2008-01-02 01:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I love Dawkins' point about the difference in how we view politicians vs scientists who change their minds. I never did understand why some people criticize politicians for changing direction- that should be a virtue.

Ted Stevens by volpe · 2008-01-02 23:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

It feels like there's nothing we can do to stop idiots like Ted Stevens from getting elected.

Did I miss something about Stevens? Did he say something outrageous like like propose logging every packet in order to help fight terrorism? I mean, it can't just be the "series of tubes" thing, right? Look, I like Jon Stewart as much as the next guy, probably more so, but continuing to make fun of him like that just seems to make it apparent that there really wasn't all that much to make fun of. I mean, the guy uses a perfectly reasonable analogy to convey the point that the Internet itself is merely a conduit of information, and is not responsible for the "dump-trucks" full of crap that are congesting it, and all of a sudden he becomes the poster-boy for elderly computer illiteracy? I don't get it.

Does anyone here really think Stevens was under the mistaken impression that the Internet is physically implmemented in the form of hollow cylindrical tubes through which we push little capsules containing IP packets written on paper, like at the drive-thru teller at the bank? Can I get a show of hands? Anybody?

Please, please, please tell me it's not just the tubes thing.

Slashdot Mirror

What Did You Change Your Mind About in 2007?

102 of 578 comments (clear)