It wasn't some flashy new idea that emerged over the course of few hours or even a few years.
No ? Because my histories say it kinda was.
That takes things out of context, and that's dangerous. Why? Because by saying 'invented' instead of 'reacted to some known previous state', you make it sound like Nazism, Communism, Black movement, Affirmative action, and everything out there, just grows on trees, people stumble upon them, and they say "Wow, this looks edible! Let's eat." That's hardly a rational explanation, let alone fact. Of course, for many people, thinking like that is just convenient, because deeper analysis of all mankind's struggle inevitably leads to personal struggles and suffering of each and every individual involved. It's easier to say that Hitler did it, instead of saying that the whole German nation at the time, who supported such a reactionary and destructive movement had their own problems that got vented on Jews, Serbs, Romani, Poles, and all the others. And that, in turn, leads to humans, and how they react to their own painful realities, and to a realization that it can (and does) happen anywhere and everywhere in many different forms. Did you histories maybe mention that? I'm sure they did not. Neither did mine.
Marx certainly did. He had lots of whims, this was just one he felt particularly whimsy about.
Firstly, equating Marxism (i.e., Marx's theories) with Communist movements, and also equating all Communist movements, is just not practical. Did Communists follow Marx's teachings? No, they didn't. At least not the part after smoking barrels.
Secondly, did Marx invent worker's suffering? Nope. It was there. It was there long before Marx, actually. Marx was just describing a possible remedy for what was the current situation in his own time: he was reacting to his own times. He also forewarned that his theories won't be valid in different times, something we call dialectical materialism. Communists, of course failed to see that, and the movement failed. It also failed because they failed to see what Nazis failed to see, and that is the reactionary mindset of humans in the times of revolution.
Marxism was invented for one reason, and one reason only : to find a way to amass power.
The fact that totalitarian regimes sprung out of Communist revolutions in some countries has nothing to do with Marx. As I said above, do not equate the two. Communism was not even supposed to end up like that. It was supposed to be "power to the workers" kind of trip. But it never happened. For the very same reasons Germans turned a socialist revolution into a horrible accident you now call Hitler for convenience and denial.
"Intelligence == ability" wasn't being argued, just that intelligence (with physical health) is much more likely to lead to ability than anything else.
There are many other factors, but discussion of such factors are completely out of scope. I'll just mention two examples here: self-confidence and agreeableness.
Why should it be? What premises are you using?
Let me get this straight. You're asking me why hiring based on actual ability as opposed IQ should be the employers' concern? I guess that's a bit philosophical, but I think it's more than reasonable to claim that raw IQ combined with various other factors (education, training, and actual experience) does not guarantee ability (nor any tendency to gain ability at any time). IOW, employers want people who can get shit done, as opposed to people who are just smart.
Yes, I'm bitter - perhaps that's because most of the benefits listed above didn't apply to me, and I still somehow managed to accomplish my goal of doing a good enough job as an undergrad to be accepted in a top 5 grad school. Upward mobility *does exist* if you're persistent (or desperate) enough.
So now you know what it feels like to be discriminated against. Now if only there was a restaurant that wouldn't serve you because of your race, and maybe get beaten in the streets. Especially if you're dating a woman of a racial majority... Oh wait, that can't happen to you.
Let's say I'm to hire a worker in an office. A white man and a darker-skinned man have equal skills, but the white man is more sociable. If I hire the white man, there's the risk that I expose myself to legal action.
Let's put this law into context. Let's say you hated black people, and it was generally accepted that hating black people is perfectly normal for a white. Any time a black person even walks into your company, you take out your gun and yell at him/her, and chase him off. Let alone hiring him/her for anything at all. Now, uncle Sam sees all that and says, "shit I've gotta do something".
That's more or less what AA is for. To get jobs for people who would otherwise not get it. At least that's how I see it. It's not a solution to the problem. It's a dirty hack.
Nothing good (from the perspective of the companies involved) could come from the release of the data. Only harm would be likely to result.
Google does have one issue (apart from maybe avoiding conflict with regulatory whatever). It's public image, cultivated carefully over the years.
Google's the good guy. They are proprietary software company, a web company, and they support open-source. They are equally accessible to everyone (except maybe Chinese), and nobody is discriminated in any way. They are cool, and just so fucking friendly. Imagine now if information is made public that it mostly hires white males. Even if that was the most reasonable thing to do in Google's situation (because maybe there weren't qualifying non-white, non-males) and despite affirmative action laws not applying to them, their image would still be tarnished. And you can see how much Google cares about their image.
Sorry if this is a duplicate post. I can't see my first post appearing
Nothing good (from the perspective of the companies involved) could come from the release of the data.
Google is a company that is operating on Internet, where it comes in contact with a very diverse ecosystem. As far as its users are concerned, it's as equal-opportunitied as it gets, accepting everyone, discriminating against nobody (except maybe Chinese, but you know the story). Remember how up until very recently, people always thought of Google as of a nice, friendly, face on the Web? It's not because Google is really like that. (Not saying it's not.) It's because they invested a lot into creating this image.
If it suddenly gets out that it hires 80% white males (and mostly from the States maybe?). I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't hire more whites or more blacks, based on merit or otherwise. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that there just weren't any qualifying non-white non-males for hire ever. This "Google's for everyone in the World despite of gender, race, or household income" image could maybe (just maybe) only slightly still be distorted. And maybe (just saying) Google cares about that more?
"Equal opportunity" laws were created in part to make up for the several hundred years of injustices done to the fairer sex and the various darker skin colors in America. I guess the legislators who came up with were out sick at school the day they had the "two wrongs don't make a right" lesson.
If I got one cent every time someone in this thread confused "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" laws, I'd probably be able to start a company where I'd hire only blacks and women, and do away with both laws.
Let's just call them the yellow people, since oriental is not politically correct.
But they are not yellow. I don't know how they came to be called 'yellow' in the first place. That even less correct than Asian (politically or otherwise). Most Japanese I know are whiter than most white guys I know. How does that make them yellow?
What a collection of stereotypes taken out of context. Almost feels like a bad soap opera. Nazi ideology didn't grow on trees you know. It wasn't some flashy new idea that emerged over the course of few hours or even a few years. Nor did Panthers invent 'black self-defense' thing. Did communist invent struggle for worker's liberation out of whim?
Also, communists didn't believe that everybody should be the same. They put high value on labor, and if you are not a working[wo]man, you are more-or-less inferior. Also, communist society never grew outside their own history and planted into an otherwise 'healthy' society. Conversely, once a communist system is abolished, and a 'democratic' system is installed, values did not change over night. They remained more-or-less stable initially, and only gradually shifted towards the new set of values. And that's despite the fact that installing democratic systems in communist countries was never undramatic. Nazis have their background, too, and so do panthers.
The past few decades of testing have revealed that your intelligence is set before and during the early very years of your life, and that intelligence is strongly correlated with performance at cerebral tasks. So, it is as unfair to judge you by your ability as by your race
Intelligence != ability. Ability is your capacity to fulfill the requirements of the job you're doing. That's what employers are looking for (or should at least). So, no, it's not just fair to be rated by your ability, but it's also the fundamental premise of the employment process (or should be at least).
And how does your ideology countenence that you're spending your clients/employers money on the extra time you spend using a non optimum toolset ?
As for my own workflow, there are two reasons I don't cost my clients any more than others do. I don't do book design (which I can only imagine would be a pain doing in Scribus, and I'm sure LaTeX, which I still haven't mastered, would again save a lot of time compared to InDesign), and I know my tools well enough.
Sure, with Inkscape, you sometimes have to export as many as dozens of PNGs along with the original SVG file, and recompose it in Scribus to get a faithful press-ready copy in PDF. You might think that's a lot of time. But in reality all that time is more than made up by Inkscape's responsiveness and the quality of PDFs produced by Scribus. In comparison, I cannot say I've ever been satisfied with performance and stability of Adobe products, and Illustrator doesn't even offer crash recovery, which frequently leads to much hair-pulling.
Given two graphic designers of identical skill, the one who spends most time having to think about/get tools to work is the one with the least time for design, and therefore produces work of a worse quality.
You are, then, talking about one incompetent, and one skilled designer. Tools of the trade are not something you want to fool around with, and I'm sure you'll agree. I've attempted a complete switch to open-source two times before I succeeded, and I've only decided to switch for good when I felt comfortable using the available tools.
Just another note. Just because open-source tools are different, doesn't automatically mean they are inferior. Take LaTeX for example. It actually offers unparalleled typography, yet it's difficult to use for people who are used to Quark or InDesign. In hands of an experienced LaTeX typesetter, this tool will put to shame any fancy designer using proprietary software.
Yeah sure. Only open source developers care about their work. Anyone that gets paid wouldn't care enough to do a good job or do one iota more than they are paid to. All hail the open source saints.
But of course paid developers sometimes care about their work. The same goes for any paid job. If one's lucky enough. But it's far from common.
It would be like asking which is better, a Soviet era Yugo or a McClaren F1.
A bit off-topic, but, Yugo was not a Soviet product, nor a product of Soviet era. It was a Yugoslav product. The way it was designed? Well, someone had a failed project for what was later done right to become Wolksvagen Golf, and people at Zastava, the company that made Yugos hired the guy. They held a fake contest, and the best design lost to that failure of a design. Has any money been put into developing Yugo? Not much. In comparison, I bet McClaren F1 was well paid-for, starting from a good base design to all the later improvements. But is Yugo open-source anyway? Nope. It was just successfully reverse-engineered, but I guess that doesn't count.
RAW files aren't the only, or even the most important problem. The problem is colorspace conversions across programs. Can you do that under Linux with a reasonable effort? Honest question, 'cuz I don't know.
I won't lie. It's not easy, but it can be done. The reason I use Linux is because of my ideological convictions, and because I also work as a web developer and am fully aware of the benefits of open-source model.
There really are half-arsed tools out there, that require considerably more effort to achieve results comparable to commercial software, and sometimes you have to chain three tools (incliding command-line ones) to get the result that would require on Adobe InDesign otherwise. But I also believe that in the end, at least in graphic design, the skill of the user is far more important than the tools, once you reach the point when things are doable one way or the other.
Good for you. Nevertheless, it's probably not good enough for anyone who needs to do color-critical photographic work, which means everybody doing anything for serious print media. Lightweight Web work is a different matter, of course; you don't even need GIMP for that.
First, your premises are not correct. Not every piece of color-critical print work involves RAW files, and sometimes not even photographs. So, unless you want to keep on talking about some fictional 'everybody', not it's untrue that it doesn't work for everybody. It works for me and many others out there some of whom I know in person.
Incidentally, I do graphic work for living, and I don't have to deal with RAW format at work either even though I have all the tools I need. We have photo people here who do that.
Does the entire imaging chain from RAW in the camera to the final layout sent to the printer handle profiling transparently?
That is in photography arena. I was talking about graphic design man mentioned above. I've never needed to deal with RAW files myself because a photographer would never give me RAWs. I usually get a TIF or JPEG and work with that. For all practical graphic design purposes, my CM work flow is more than satisfactory.
I've heard people complaining about RAW formats before, but I really can't say anything about it other than I know people complain about it.
Mr Graphic Designer Man: "Linux still doesn't do proper color management."
Mr FOSS Man: "Writing unfree software is immoral!"
You can have more than decent color management on Linux and/or with FOSS software, actually. I bought a cheap calibration hardware that comes in Pro and non-Pro variants. I opted for non-Pro. The difference between the two is software. With ArgyllCMS, you can actually get better results using the non-Pro device than with whatever software comes with the Pro version. And that's without any compiling or patching or any kind of fiddling most 'normal' graphic designers find too difficult to even attempt. Not just that. Should I get a new device (at least one of the well-known brands), it would most likely work with the same software without any need for a change in work flow.
So, while I would maintain that it's not quite right to write software that you cannot share with your friends or modify if you know how, I would also like to point out how many anti-open-source arguments like the one above have been obsoleted by maturing open-source projects.
I always had the feeling that the argument against the health care reform is like... "the poor people should just die if they get sick" or something like that.
Economically justified. People who can't buy stuff should perish. Right? Right?
Well yes, I suppose that is one way of looking at my statement, and what happened. Any lollies that would have come to us got absconded for a higher purpose.
You are probably not the only one. But it gets worse once you start believing there is such a thing as a 'higher purpose'. That's the way to create a bunch of docile masochists (not saying you're one) who will vote for just about anyone who'd take their lolly away for 'a higher purpose'.
Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been. Gotta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen.
Up is down, slavery is freedom, and wrong is right. Typical shit that can be expected from corrupt governments and the corrupt people who put up with them.
It's not 'corrupt' people. They are just 'uninformed' (as in 'dumb'). Most of them will never become informed anyway, because, to use the politically correct term, they don't give a fuck.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't some flashy new idea that emerged over the course of few hours or even a few years.
No ? Because my histories say it kinda was.
That takes things out of context, and that's dangerous. Why? Because by saying 'invented' instead of 'reacted to some known previous state', you make it sound like Nazism, Communism, Black movement, Affirmative action, and everything out there, just grows on trees, people stumble upon them, and they say "Wow, this looks edible! Let's eat." That's hardly a rational explanation, let alone fact. Of course, for many people, thinking like that is just convenient, because deeper analysis of all mankind's struggle inevitably leads to personal struggles and suffering of each and every individual involved. It's easier to say that Hitler did it, instead of saying that the whole German nation at the time, who supported such a reactionary and destructive movement had their own problems that got vented on Jews, Serbs, Romani, Poles, and all the others. And that, in turn, leads to humans, and how they react to their own painful realities, and to a realization that it can (and does) happen anywhere and everywhere in many different forms. Did you histories maybe mention that? I'm sure they did not. Neither did mine.
Marx certainly did. He had lots of whims, this was just one he felt particularly whimsy about.
Firstly, equating Marxism (i.e., Marx's theories) with Communist movements, and also equating all Communist movements, is just not practical. Did Communists follow Marx's teachings? No, they didn't. At least not the part after smoking barrels.
Secondly, did Marx invent worker's suffering? Nope. It was there. It was there long before Marx, actually. Marx was just describing a possible remedy for what was the current situation in his own time: he was reacting to his own times. He also forewarned that his theories won't be valid in different times, something we call dialectical materialism. Communists, of course failed to see that, and the movement failed. It also failed because they failed to see what Nazis failed to see, and that is the reactionary mindset of humans in the times of revolution.
Marxism was invented for one reason, and one reason only : to find a way to amass power.
The fact that totalitarian regimes sprung out of Communist revolutions in some countries has nothing to do with Marx. As I said above, do not equate the two. Communism was not even supposed to end up like that. It was supposed to be "power to the workers" kind of trip. But it never happened. For the very same reasons Germans turned a socialist revolution into a horrible accident you now call Hitler for convenience and denial.
"Intelligence == ability" wasn't being argued, just that intelligence (with physical health) is much more likely to lead to ability than anything else.
There are many other factors, but discussion of such factors are completely out of scope. I'll just mention two examples here: self-confidence and agreeableness.
Why should it be? What premises are you using?
Let me get this straight. You're asking me why hiring based on actual ability as opposed IQ should be the employers' concern? I guess that's a bit philosophical, but I think it's more than reasonable to claim that raw IQ combined with various other factors (education, training, and actual experience) does not guarantee ability (nor any tendency to gain ability at any time). IOW, employers want people who can get shit done, as opposed to people who are just smart.
Yes, I'm bitter - perhaps that's because most of the benefits listed above didn't apply to me, and I still somehow managed to accomplish my goal of doing a good enough job as an undergrad to be accepted in a top 5 grad school. Upward mobility *does exist* if you're persistent (or desperate) enough.
So now you know what it feels like to be discriminated against. Now if only there was a restaurant that wouldn't serve you because of your race, and maybe get beaten in the streets. Especially if you're dating a woman of a racial majority... Oh wait, that can't happen to you.
Let's say I'm to hire a worker in an office. A white man and a darker-skinned man have equal skills, but the white man is more sociable. If I hire the white man, there's the risk that I expose myself to legal action.
Let's put this law into context. Let's say you hated black people, and it was generally accepted that hating black people is perfectly normal for a white. Any time a black person even walks into your company, you take out your gun and yell at him/her, and chase him off. Let alone hiring him/her for anything at all. Now, uncle Sam sees all that and says, "shit I've gotta do something".
That's more or less what AA is for. To get jobs for people who would otherwise not get it. At least that's how I see it. It's not a solution to the problem. It's a dirty hack.
Here's a remix of my previous post, just in case "white male" thing was offensive.
Imagine now if information is made public that it mostly hires Indians.
Nothing good (from the perspective of the companies involved) could come from the release of the data. Only harm would be likely to result.
Google does have one issue (apart from maybe avoiding conflict with regulatory whatever). It's public image, cultivated carefully over the years.
Google's the good guy. They are proprietary software company, a web company, and they support open-source. They are equally accessible to everyone (except maybe Chinese), and nobody is discriminated in any way. They are cool, and just so fucking friendly. Imagine now if information is made public that it mostly hires white males. Even if that was the most reasonable thing to do in Google's situation (because maybe there weren't qualifying non-white, non-males) and despite affirmative action laws not applying to them, their image would still be tarnished. And you can see how much Google cares about their image.
Sorry if this is a duplicate post. I can't see my first post appearing
Nothing good (from the perspective of the companies involved) could come from the release of the data.
Google is a company that is operating on Internet, where it comes in contact with a very diverse ecosystem. As far as its users are concerned, it's as equal-opportunitied as it gets, accepting everyone, discriminating against nobody (except maybe Chinese, but you know the story). Remember how up until very recently, people always thought of Google as of a nice, friendly, face on the Web? It's not because Google is really like that. (Not saying it's not.) It's because they invested a lot into creating this image.
If it suddenly gets out that it hires 80% white males (and mostly from the States maybe?). I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't hire more whites or more blacks, based on merit or otherwise. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that there just weren't any qualifying non-white non-males for hire ever. This "Google's for everyone in the World despite of gender, race, or household income" image could maybe (just maybe) only slightly still be distorted. And maybe (just saying) Google cares about that more?
"Equal opportunity" laws were created in part to make up for the several hundred years of injustices done to the fairer sex and the various darker skin colors in America. I guess the legislators who came up with were out sick at school the day they had the "two wrongs don't make a right" lesson.
If I got one cent every time someone in this thread confused "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" laws, I'd probably be able to start a company where I'd hire only blacks and women, and do away with both laws.
You don't even think you're racist, do you?
Maybe s/he is just disadvantaged because of lacking access to a good educational system?
Let's just call them the yellow people, since oriental is not politically correct.
But they are not yellow. I don't know how they came to be called 'yellow' in the first place. That even less correct than Asian (politically or otherwise). Most Japanese I know are whiter than most white guys I know. How does that make them yellow?
What a collection of stereotypes taken out of context. Almost feels like a bad soap opera. Nazi ideology didn't grow on trees you know. It wasn't some flashy new idea that emerged over the course of few hours or even a few years. Nor did Panthers invent 'black self-defense' thing. Did communist invent struggle for worker's liberation out of whim?
Also, communists didn't believe that everybody should be the same. They put high value on labor, and if you are not a working[wo]man, you are more-or-less inferior. Also, communist society never grew outside their own history and planted into an otherwise 'healthy' society. Conversely, once a communist system is abolished, and a 'democratic' system is installed, values did not change over night. They remained more-or-less stable initially, and only gradually shifted towards the new set of values. And that's despite the fact that installing democratic systems in communist countries was never undramatic. Nazis have their background, too, and so do panthers.
The past few decades of testing have revealed that your intelligence is set before and during the early very years of your life, and that intelligence is strongly correlated with performance at cerebral tasks. So, it is as unfair to judge you by your ability as by your race
Intelligence != ability. Ability is your capacity to fulfill the requirements of the job you're doing. That's what employers are looking for (or should at least). So, no, it's not just fair to be rated by your ability, but it's also the fundamental premise of the employment process (or should be at least).
And how does your ideology countenence that you're spending your clients/employers money on the extra time you spend using a non optimum toolset ?
As for my own workflow, there are two reasons I don't cost my clients any more than others do. I don't do book design (which I can only imagine would be a pain doing in Scribus, and I'm sure LaTeX, which I still haven't mastered, would again save a lot of time compared to InDesign), and I know my tools well enough.
Sure, with Inkscape, you sometimes have to export as many as dozens of PNGs along with the original SVG file, and recompose it in Scribus to get a faithful press-ready copy in PDF. You might think that's a lot of time. But in reality all that time is more than made up by Inkscape's responsiveness and the quality of PDFs produced by Scribus. In comparison, I cannot say I've ever been satisfied with performance and stability of Adobe products, and Illustrator doesn't even offer crash recovery, which frequently leads to much hair-pulling.
Given two graphic designers of identical skill, the one who spends most time having to think about/get tools to work is the one with the least time for design, and therefore produces work of a worse quality.
You are, then, talking about one incompetent, and one skilled designer. Tools of the trade are not something you want to fool around with, and I'm sure you'll agree. I've attempted a complete switch to open-source two times before I succeeded, and I've only decided to switch for good when I felt comfortable using the available tools.
Just another note. Just because open-source tools are different, doesn't automatically mean they are inferior. Take LaTeX for example. It actually offers unparalleled typography, yet it's difficult to use for people who are used to Quark or InDesign. In hands of an experienced LaTeX typesetter, this tool will put to shame any fancy designer using proprietary software.
Yeah sure. Only open source developers care about their work. Anyone that gets paid wouldn't care enough to do a good job or do one iota more than they are paid to. All hail the open source saints.
But of course paid developers sometimes care about their work. The same goes for any paid job. If one's lucky enough. But it's far from common.
It would be like asking which is better, a Soviet era Yugo or a McClaren F1.
A bit off-topic, but, Yugo was not a Soviet product, nor a product of Soviet era. It was a Yugoslav product. The way it was designed? Well, someone had a failed project for what was later done right to become Wolksvagen Golf, and people at Zastava, the company that made Yugos hired the guy. They held a fake contest, and the best design lost to that failure of a design. Has any money been put into developing Yugo? Not much. In comparison, I bet McClaren F1 was well paid-for, starting from a good base design to all the later improvements. But is Yugo open-source anyway? Nope. It was just successfully reverse-engineered, but I guess that doesn't count.
RAW files aren't the only, or even the most important problem. The problem is colorspace conversions across programs. Can you do that under Linux with a reasonable effort? Honest question, 'cuz I don't know.
I won't lie. It's not easy, but it can be done. The reason I use Linux is because of my ideological convictions, and because I also work as a web developer and am fully aware of the benefits of open-source model.
There really are half-arsed tools out there, that require considerably more effort to achieve results comparable to commercial software, and sometimes you have to chain three tools (incliding command-line ones) to get the result that would require on Adobe InDesign otherwise. But I also believe that in the end, at least in graphic design, the skill of the user is far more important than the tools, once you reach the point when things are doable one way or the other.
Good for you. Nevertheless, it's probably not good enough for anyone who needs to do color-critical photographic work, which means everybody doing anything for serious print media. Lightweight Web work is a different matter, of course; you don't even need GIMP for that.
First, your premises are not correct. Not every piece of color-critical print work involves RAW files, and sometimes not even photographs. So, unless you want to keep on talking about some fictional 'everybody', not it's untrue that it doesn't work for everybody. It works for me and many others out there some of whom I know in person.
Incidentally, I do graphic work for living, and I don't have to deal with RAW format at work either even though I have all the tools I need. We have photo people here who do that.
Does the entire imaging chain from RAW in the camera to the final layout sent to the printer handle profiling transparently?
That is in photography arena. I was talking about graphic design man mentioned above. I've never needed to deal with RAW files myself because a photographer would never give me RAWs. I usually get a TIF or JPEG and work with that. For all practical graphic design purposes, my CM work flow is more than satisfactory.
I've heard people complaining about RAW formats before, but I really can't say anything about it other than I know people complain about it.
Mr Graphic Designer Man: "Linux still doesn't do proper color management." Mr FOSS Man: "Writing unfree software is immoral!"
You can have more than decent color management on Linux and/or with FOSS software, actually. I bought a cheap calibration hardware that comes in Pro and non-Pro variants. I opted for non-Pro. The difference between the two is software. With ArgyllCMS, you can actually get better results using the non-Pro device than with whatever software comes with the Pro version. And that's without any compiling or patching or any kind of fiddling most 'normal' graphic designers find too difficult to even attempt. Not just that. Should I get a new device (at least one of the well-known brands), it would most likely work with the same software without any need for a change in work flow.
So, while I would maintain that it's not quite right to write software that you cannot share with your friends or modify if you know how, I would also like to point out how many anti-open-source arguments like the one above have been obsoleted by maturing open-source projects.
I always had the feeling that the argument against the health care reform is like... "the poor people should just die if they get sick" or something like that.
Economically justified. People who can't buy stuff should perish. Right? Right?
What bad idea of Bush's has Obama actually changed so far?
Not making poorly conceived excuses?
New Patent! Sparklines ***on the internet***!
Google's already been doing it for quite a while. Check out google analytics summary pages. It's loaded with them. There are more examples here: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001OR
Well yes, I suppose that is one way of looking at my statement, and what happened. Any lollies that would have come to us got absconded for a higher purpose.
You are probably not the only one. But it gets worse once you start believing there is such a thing as a 'higher purpose'. That's the way to create a bunch of docile masochists (not saying you're one) who will vote for just about anyone who'd take their lolly away for 'a higher purpose'.
Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been. Gotta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen.
Up is down, slavery is freedom, and wrong is right. Typical shit that can be expected from corrupt governments and the corrupt people who put up with them.
It's not 'corrupt' people. They are just 'uninformed' (as in 'dumb'). Most of them will never become informed anyway, because, to use the politically correct term, they don't give a fuck.
Also available here