The problem with American unions - particularly those from industry and manufacturing - is that they are products of the early-mid 1900s, and still treat both the workers and management with the same mentality - fear. There is an argument that the Union model is more or less outdated (and Big Unions have a bit too much in common with Big Business anyway).
Maybe there is a model that IT types can build one from the ground up....but I don't know that it would work all that well.
From one perspective, it's a reasonable starting position - I immediately questioned net neutrality because of who was supporting it - anti-business (and I'm NOT just saying "anti-corporate" here) hard-leftists. It's the one time that they may at least be partially correct, but I DO believe that they wish to regulate content (particularly free speech issues a la "fairness doctrine"), and didn't quite get what they wanted.
I DON'T trust the government on net neutrality, however.
I wonder if the recent WL issues signal the end of DDoS for at least large companies - Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, etc. I can foresee them putting enough money into their servers and infrastructure that, at some point, they really couldn't be overwhelmed.
Is this going to wind up being a hardware or software issue in the future in preventing DDoS attacks?
Ummm...the Iranian angle isn't surprising. Historically, the Arab nations have never really gotten along all that well with them. It's actually pretty central to the Shia-Sunni conflict.
What "terrorist" sites? There's PLENTY of garbage out there that stays up that should probably be more controlled - pedophilia, genuine terrorist sites (al-qaeda related, etc), etc.
Just go look at racist sites from all sides of the aisle and you'll probably see better examples as well - sites that wouldn't see the light of day in Europe.
At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa and the Middle East, and maybe some dirty corporations? Just about everything that I've seen released this time is a bunch of "well, duh" stuff and driven by base anti-Americanism. I'm not saying some secrets don't need to be exposed, just that Assange seems so callous in doing it.
The romans had bread and circuses, the conservatives/tories have home owner ship, holland has to mortage deduction and America has the two cars in the drive way.
What does this do? It is about creating a working "middle" class. A hard working "middle" class. But not a real middle class. Not a middle class that has power but a middle class that have just enough to give them something to loose if they try to gain anything. The principle is VERY simple. Feed the masses just enough to don't make it an issue of starve or riot but rather, eat enough or riot and starve.
Strike, and you loose your mortage, can't make the monthly car payments and therefor you got to swallow everything, just so you can keep the two cars you so desperately need for the job to pay for the cars because there is no public transport alternative.
It is VERY effective. Look at the recent election results, people voted to protect the rights of rich people. Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.
Forget about letting them eat cake. Let them dream of cake, and they will go as sheep to the slaughterhouse.
There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.
I believe that both sides of the aisle are as corporatist as anyone; however, expecting the answer to be to take from the owners of production and expecting us to remain productive is a pipe dream of the left who DON'T understand economics.
The answer is promoting self-responsibility in ALL aspects - from rich to poor. Don't bail out either.
I ALMOST agree with that viewpoint on marijuana; the problem is the same with the matter that I think the whole "victimless" issue is WAY overstated, and the dangers are understated. No, it doesn't bother me until the guy expects me to pay for his medical care or deal with him on the road when he runs out of munchies.
Treat it like alcohol and smoking - harsh enforcement for people driving high, keep it out of public use.
And "logic" can easily tell me that the factor is life, and that life CAN start as soon as a fertilized egg is made.
"She." Kathleen Blanco was governor at the time. And was woefully inept during Katrina.
Other than Ray Nagin, there was actually a LOT of competence on the local level in small towns and such - it's just that the big mistakes were made by the big leaders. Louisiana suffered GREATLY there because of widespread ineptitude. Compare to Mississippi, where Haley Barbour did a VERY good job.
Of course, there were a lot of cultural differences where the generationally poor in New Orleans learned a hard lesson about what government won't do for them.
Compare to Gustav, when Bobby Jindal - and the people of Louisiana (and Baton Rouge in particular) - handled the situation on their own VERY well with FEMA being VERY late to the game.
Oh, and down there? It was area churches that came through more than anyone else. But you won't see that on the news.
If you look at politics as a circle instead of a line, there are times where they can be eerily similar. Concentration of power and resources in too few hands.
I think that the GS could STILL be out of the way, but there were two issues at hand - one is/was the inherent backing of home loans by Fannie and Freddie, which artificially inflates home prices; the other isn't the lack of regulation, but the lack of transparency and practical fraud on the part of ratings agencies like Moody's. The banks could STILL be investment banks and have followed rules that were probably still in place along those lines, but when you engage in fraud with the rules still in place, the rules don't matter.
On top of which, many had the insurance backed by the government, covering their risk. Take away that, banks get smarter about lending.
For me, I occasionally vote libertarian, but I think that they have several core turnoffs. One is their no-holds-barred stance on marijuana (which a lot of the US doesn't want legalized) and their non-pro-life stance (which can actually have a libertarian, non-religious viewpoint).
No, it isn't. The South African example is proof of that. Companies cannot afford to open and then have all those benefits to give away particularly to an uneducated populace. They'll always go somewhere where they can truly afford to do business.
A man needs money in his pocket - which means he needs a job - far more than he needs to worry about vacation time or health benefits. Those come later as a matter of wealth, not rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmmm....I don't think that any other economic system would be any different.
The problem with American unions - particularly those from industry and manufacturing - is that they are products of the early-mid 1900s, and still treat both the workers and management with the same mentality - fear. There is an argument that the Union model is more or less outdated (and Big Unions have a bit too much in common with Big Business anyway).
Maybe there is a model that IT types can build one from the ground up....but I don't know that it would work all that well.
Well, considering that was what happened before it was removed, I believe the position is reasonable.
From one perspective, it's a reasonable starting position - I immediately questioned net neutrality because of who was supporting it - anti-business (and I'm NOT just saying "anti-corporate" here) hard-leftists. It's the one time that they may at least be partially correct, but I DO believe that they wish to regulate content (particularly free speech issues a la "fairness doctrine"), and didn't quite get what they wanted.
I DON'T trust the government on net neutrality, however.
That's near-future, though. I suspect we'll eventually see something for the large corps that prevents those type of attacks.
I wonder if the recent WL issues signal the end of DDoS for at least large companies - Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, etc. I can foresee them putting enough money into their servers and infrastructure that, at some point, they really couldn't be overwhelmed. Is this going to wind up being a hardware or software issue in the future in preventing DDoS attacks?
Yeah, but does it run LINUX?
Ummm...the Iranian angle isn't surprising. Historically, the Arab nations have never really gotten along all that well with them. It's actually pretty central to the Shia-Sunni conflict.
What about transportation of the materials to final assembly; or their mining and production?
Except that the production of electric cars tends to use highly toxic materials and burn a TON of energy in transporting materials to final assembly.
Which means that there was little to no point in bailing GM out. The end result was the same, it took more time, and will be a net loss to Americans.
What "terrorist" sites? There's PLENTY of garbage out there that stays up that should probably be more controlled - pedophilia, genuine terrorist sites (al-qaeda related, etc), etc.
Just go look at racist sites from all sides of the aisle and you'll probably see better examples as well - sites that wouldn't see the light of day in Europe.
At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa and the Middle East, and maybe some dirty corporations? Just about everything that I've seen released this time is a bunch of "well, duh" stuff and driven by base anti-Americanism. I'm not saying some secrets don't need to be exposed, just that Assange seems so callous in doing it.
The romans had bread and circuses, the conservatives/tories have home owner ship, holland has to mortage deduction and America has the two cars in the drive way.
What does this do? It is about creating a working "middle" class. A hard working "middle" class. But not a real middle class. Not a middle class that has power but a middle class that have just enough to give them something to loose if they try to gain anything. The principle is VERY simple. Feed the masses just enough to don't make it an issue of starve or riot but rather, eat enough or riot and starve.
Strike, and you loose your mortage, can't make the monthly car payments and therefor you got to swallow everything, just so you can keep the two cars you so desperately need for the job to pay for the cars because there is no public transport alternative.
It is VERY effective. Look at the recent election results, people voted to protect the rights of rich people. Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.
Forget about letting them eat cake. Let them dream of cake, and they will go as sheep to the slaughterhouse.
There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.
I believe that both sides of the aisle are as corporatist as anyone; however, expecting the answer to be to take from the owners of production and expecting us to remain productive is a pipe dream of the left who DON'T understand economics.
The answer is promoting self-responsibility in ALL aspects - from rich to poor. Don't bail out either.
Even if that occurs, it's not such a bad place to start.
Resi internet, I imagine, will be a problem that will be solved VERY quickly there with a company enterprising enough to see the need and fill it.
Failed history, did we?
Answer 0: Make it about sports.
An übergeek knows life, the universe and everything, including Windows.
With the exception of the vagina. Being born through one doesn't count. Nor does a fleshlight.
42.
I ALMOST agree with that viewpoint on marijuana; the problem is the same with the matter that I think the whole "victimless" issue is WAY overstated, and the dangers are understated. No, it doesn't bother me until the guy expects me to pay for his medical care or deal with him on the road when he runs out of munchies.
Treat it like alcohol and smoking - harsh enforcement for people driving high, keep it out of public use.
And "logic" can easily tell me that the factor is life, and that life CAN start as soon as a fertilized egg is made.
"She." Kathleen Blanco was governor at the time. And was woefully inept during Katrina.
Other than Ray Nagin, there was actually a LOT of competence on the local level in small towns and such - it's just that the big mistakes were made by the big leaders. Louisiana suffered GREATLY there because of widespread ineptitude. Compare to Mississippi, where Haley Barbour did a VERY good job.
Of course, there were a lot of cultural differences where the generationally poor in New Orleans learned a hard lesson about what government won't do for them.
Compare to Gustav, when Bobby Jindal - and the people of Louisiana (and Baton Rouge in particular) - handled the situation on their own VERY well with FEMA being VERY late to the game.
Oh, and down there? It was area churches that came through more than anyone else. But you won't see that on the news.
If you look at politics as a circle instead of a line, there are times where they can be eerily similar. Concentration of power and resources in too few hands.
I think that the GS could STILL be out of the way, but there were two issues at hand - one is/was the inherent backing of home loans by Fannie and Freddie, which artificially inflates home prices; the other isn't the lack of regulation, but the lack of transparency and practical fraud on the part of ratings agencies like Moody's. The banks could STILL be investment banks and have followed rules that were probably still in place along those lines, but when you engage in fraud with the rules still in place, the rules don't matter.
On top of which, many had the insurance backed by the government, covering their risk. Take away that, banks get smarter about lending.
For me, I occasionally vote libertarian, but I think that they have several core turnoffs. One is their no-holds-barred stance on marijuana (which a lot of the US doesn't want legalized) and their non-pro-life stance (which can actually have a libertarian, non-religious viewpoint).
No, it isn't. The South African example is proof of that. Companies cannot afford to open and then have all those benefits to give away particularly to an uneducated populace. They'll always go somewhere where they can truly afford to do business.
A man needs money in his pocket - which means he needs a job - far more than he needs to worry about vacation time or health benefits. Those come later as a matter of wealth, not rules.