Fragmentation of the paging/swap file is a non issue. The OS rarely need to read more than a few blocks sequentially. Actually, one could argue that the best place for the paging file in a memory-constrained system (where swapping happens a lot) is at ½ disc width - or centered in the partition. If that happens to be interleaved with other files which are also access in a random-access pattern - so be it. It is still more optimal.
Perhaps I was unclear. The fragmentation of the paging/swap file is not the big issue here per se, rather it is the effect on the rest of the storage volume of having a fragmented swap file. When windows makes the paging file look like buckshot scattered around the hard drive, it naturally ends up scattering the files themselves all over the hard drive. Pretty soon you have a hard drive full of fragmented files, and since the paging file is often rewritten entirely each time the system boots, you end up with an increasingly fragmented paging file as well
The end result is that eventually you end up with a hard drive that cannot be defragmented significantly in any reasonable amount of time. Had the paging file been on a different partition (or separate drive altogether) that would have prevented this.
Of course, a lot of windows users would respond to this by buying a larger hard drive and then reinstalling their OS. That is not inherently a bad thing, though it doesn't prevent the problem from happening again later.
I know you asked about securing, but there is more than just security that is often overlooked in windows, that can be learned from the *nix world.
First, don't give anyone admin privileges with their default account. You are just asking for trouble if you do.
Second, the swap file should have its own partition. In *nix this is pretty much dogma, and it well should be in windows as well. Everyone knows that windows loves to fragment the hell out of its own file system, and the windows swap (paging) file is no exception. If you put it on its own partition you will make defragmentation a lot easier later when you have to do it.
Sure, there are some that do a mediocre job, but there are some that do a really great job. These journals - most of which are quite new - are coming online and expanding to meet a demand. After all, the US taxpayer in particular has demanded that we get access to the published results of publicly-funded health and science research, which is fulfilled in part by these open access journals.
Just give the journals some time to sort this out. Most of them are doing a very honest job of pursuing their goals, but some flak will squeeze through. After all, there isn't a lot of money available to pay academics to review journal articles and determine the value of the research.
Ron Paul is very anti-abortion, and his followers are a huge part of the potential Gary Johnson voters. However as I said there is nothing that they fear more than Obama, so in the end they will vote Romney to try to get rid of Obama.
Your claims that Ron Paul only wants government out of marriage for tax breaks needs a citation. Ron Paul doesn't want ANY income tax
The correct statement there would be that Ron Paul does not want to pay any income tax. He doesn't give a shit what other people have to pay. He knows that married couples with kids get tax breaks on their federal (and often state) tax returns. He wants that to go away to reduce his own tax burden to as close to zero as possible.
Yes Ron Paul is anti-war. You are again distorting both Ron's views
No. Go back and read what Ron Paul has said. He has never said that war is wrong. He has just expressed opposition to specific conflicts. The reason is obvious - he just doesn't want to pay for war.
Personal liberty is a HUGE part of the libertarian platform, as the other reply to your comment has mentioned.
If that is the case, then the libertarians should distance themselves from Ron Paul. To Ron Paul personal liberties take a back seat to taxes and profits. Ron Paul puts the advancement of corporate interests above pretty well everything else, followed by reducing his own tax burden, followed by pretty well nothing because his cares end there. Personal liberties don't mean shit to Ron Paul; if they did then he would actually want to do something to protect individuals from powerful entities like corporations. Instead he does exactly the opposite of that.
Being as Gary Johnson is the candidate that Ron Paul wants his followers to vote for, I will respond to your comments from what Ron Paul has told us. It is important to remember that Ron Paul makes all his decisions from a fiscal window - in particular, what can he do to lower his own taxes:
pro-choice
Citation needed...
pro-gay marriage
Ron Paul is most definitely not in favor of gay marriage. He wants the gov't to stop recognizing marriage entirely so that people don't get the married rate for taxation.
anti-religion in government
Ron Paul is building his own religious movement that is what he will install in government
anti-war
Ron Paul is not actually anti-war. He just opposes paying for war. A Ron Paul administration would not result in less war, just fewer wars fought by the US armed forces. Wars would instead by fought by conscripted employees of Lockheed-Martin, United Defense, and Coca-Cola against countries where they have economic interest. As corporations would have unlimited rights - and employees none - there would be no recourse against this.
Libertarians may be to the right of Republicans on fiscal issues
True
but they are to the left of Democrats on social issues
Not true. They see everything as a fiscal issue, and make every policy stance based on that.
There are some libertarian leaning Republicans, but the RNC showed us all exactly what the GOP thinks of that faction of their membership.
But in the end the vast majority of libertarians will join back with the GOP and vote for Romney because they can't stand to see another four years of Obama.
Gary Johnson is a clone of Ron Paul, who is just GOP turned up to 11. He offers nothing new, he just cranks everything the GOP wants up to an extreme level that the party leadership realizes they cannot sell. Unlike the regular GOP brass, however, he manages to pull in a few younger people who don't read the full text of what he wants - or the analysis of what it would actually do to the vast majority of Americans.
Jill Stein, on the other hand, actually offers some new ideas. Unfortunately nobody will take her seriously. Unlike in 2000, however, when republicans ran ads for Nader to pull voters away from Gore, Stein is being ignored outright because if the two main parties acknowledged her then people might realize how little difference there is in action between the republicans and the democrats.
This sort of is the problem in most of the world, but it seems even worse in science.
If by science you mean academic science, you are wrong. The top paid scientists in academia make less than 5 times as much as an average (in terms of pay) post-doc. Even if you leave science but stay in academia - moving to administrative - your salary doesn't go up that much. The top paid university presidents and chancellors don't make that much more than department heads (and generally a hell of a lot less than the football and basketball coaches at the same schools)
There are far greater pay differentials in industry than in any academic institution I am aware of in the US.
So, you're saying that the assistant professors are probably the ones I've read about being on food stamps?
I don't know of any on food stamps, but to spell it out yet again, the progression through academia generally goes:
Graduate student
Post-doctoral
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
(full) Professor
Some universities also have "Research (X) Professor" titles, the significance of which varies from one institution to another. A departmental chair is generally a full professor who was promoted, though that also varies.
Universities should be models for the liberal worldview
You don't seem to understand either...
Instead, we find income disparities just like we find in the corporate world.
Actually, no. They are not "just like" the corporate world. Top execs in the corporate world make hundreds (if not more) times as much as the peons who do the actual work. That does not happen in academia. Virtually nobody in American academia who has an actual academic job makes over $250k from that job alone.
You've said people without degrees have no right to expect to be paid living wages
You're bastardizing my words, to say the least. That doesn't surprise me considering how little you know about this topic that you are trying to portray yourself as being somehow knowledgeable on.
For that matter, nobody mentioned anything about the wage at a university being "liveable". Generally, while the wage of a grad student is terrible, it is designed to be sufficient for one student to live on. That is why grad students are paid more in San Francisco than in the middle of Iowa.
discussing a university paying all of its employees a living wage is not relevent to its progressive worldview
Perhaps you are confusing minimum wage with a livable wage? You do seem to be easily confused, so that could be an explanation here. While the hourly wage of a grad student is miserable - especially when you consider they generally are paid a stipend and then expected to work 80 hour weeks for it - the stipend is set to match the cost of living for that geographic area. If they want to work in science for better money and fewer hours, they could take their four-year degrees and become technicians. They know exactly what they are signing up for when they become grad students.
Can the phd student decide they don't like their working hours, and pick up and switch schools?
Sure, they can always drop out and find a different program.
What would happen to them?
There is no one answer to that question. It depends on where they leave, and where they go; as well as what they did where they left. It is not that uncommon, though.
No, they can't just switch without a tremendous cost.
Oh, because you just pulled that answer out of your own rear end, we should believe it without question - even though you don't know squat about academia?
In the corporate world, when a company pays workers a bad wage for the simple reason that they can, it's considered to be a problem.
You're missing the point - apparently in an effort to share what you have heard on conservative talk radio - entirely.
There is a huge difference between paying a graduate student poorly and paying someone at Walmart poorly. The graduate student already has a 4-year degree (and in some cases, a master's as well) and is able to take a better-paying job doing something else if they prefer. They have, instead, opted to enroll as a graduate student and accept the low pay under the promise of being able to move afterwards to a position that will pay better based on what they can demonstrate they have learned in graduate school.
Quite to the contrary, a Walmart employee has generally almost no qualifications, and almost no chance for advancement. You can work at Walmart for half a decade and have nothing to show for it - in some cases not even health insurance. If you leave they will trash your name to any prospective future employer, and you won't have anything to show to prove them wrong.
Associate professors make low wages
That should be ASSISTANT professors. Being as you don't know the difference, this conversation probably won't ever sink in for you as to just how wrong most of what you have written thus far has been. Associate professors make a very reasonable salary; they have been promoted based on their experience, their publication record, their funding, and various other very measurable metrics. Which is why there is nothing inherently not liberal or progressive about the system. You have to work for what you are paid, and those who are better at their job - by way of a proven track record - are promoted and paid better as a result.
the folks who work in the cafeterias. What are their wages?
That is your least logical question yet. The people in the cafeterias don't have PhD's or publication records.
Again, we're talking about organizations that are run by liberals; they have the power to shape the organization any way they want.
Being as you don't seem to have even a basic grasp of what it means to be liberal, that statement is meaningless.
And, the result is something that is very similar to the corporate world that they criticize
You are, as usual, very very wrong. I could spell it out yet again for you here but you won't read it.
"Full professors earn on average about 70% more than assistant professors in the same institution." That doesn't exactly sound equitable, does it?
It is primarily rewarding seniority, and a legacy of accomplishments (which are rewarded with tenure and promotion). There is nothing inherently non-liberal about that. Also, full professor is TWO steps up from assistant professor (which is what the statement you quoted referred to) with associate professor in between.
But what do the folks at the top do? At many institutions, division chairs don't teach classes at all. Many will teach 1 or two classes per semester, and keep "office hours".
Do you really think that managing an academic department is easy? For that matter, do you have any idea what goes in to teaching a university level science class?
equal pay for equal work,
Again, rewarding seniority and a history of accomplishment is in no way inherently not liberal.
good working conditions
The ability to do the work that you went to school for most of your life for, a positive collaborative environment, those are pretty good conditions by the way that most academics see them. Just because they don't have free massages at work doesn't mean the conditions are bad.
an environment that cares about the individual (aka no 80 hours weeks)
Nobody in academia goes in not knowing about that. They could have chosen to go into industry instead, or become a technician.
But none of that happens, does it?
You don't have the slightest idea how academic research actually works, do you? Have you ever even met someone with a PhD in the sciences?
I was going to predict that in this slashdot discussion, roman_mir would recite his religious mantras using multiple accounts while ignoring the reality of the situation entirely. Looks like I win.
So, Mr(s). Tenured Professor, how many hours a week do you work for that $200,000 salary?
There are virtually no tenured professors in the US being paid that much. Whoever wrote that comment is pulling number out of their ass to push their misinformed agenda. The only people at most universities who are paid at that level are top executives (who don't teach or conduct research, and should not be called professor) or sports coaches.
A system where a few people at the top make really good money while working very few hours. Meanwhile, the people at the bottom work huge hours for little or no money.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The notion of "people at the top make really good money while working very few hours" is utter bullshit, unless you are talking about the executives in charge of universities who are more likely to be business (conservative) types than science (liberal) types. And the executives at major universities are, with few exceptions, being paid far less than the football and basketball coaches at the same schools. The vast majority of actual teaching and research faculty work very long hours every day for the kind of money that business execs in this country would laugh at.
Active faculty members not only are working full days at least 5 days a week, they are also spending most of their time at home working on grant applications and publications so they can keep their jobs.
This applies to pretty well every science PhD program in the states. You suffer for less than minimum wage for many years and then you get tortured more when you want to finish.
Of course,many grad students in the US are union-represented. Unfortunately like in pretty much every other industry in this country, the unions have pretty well no power over anything. If you're really lucky your union will negotiate a 5% discount on parking for you in comparison to what visitors are paying for the same space - though you'll still be parking 5 times further from the lab than your PI and paying 4 times his rate for that privilege.
In the unlikely event that you'll come back to read my reply, it's worth pointing out that I don't care about any of the platforms you are listing plans to release titles for. Release something - especially your "final right" platform fighting game - for Wii or Linux and I'll happily send money your way.
That was the first game I ever changed the code on. Of course, first we played it as is to figure out what we could do. Then we went into the code and broke it - who says bananas can't fly straight through solid buildings?
I'd suggest you go buy a used Wii for him. You should be able to pick one up for around $50 secondhand if you look a little bit. It should be no problem for him to pick up and play with.
Besides, the best computer games require the ability to read. No offense but I suspect your 3 year old isn't very literate yet.
Until we can break the illusion that the State is benevolent and only wants what is good for us, we'll have people ridiculing Austrian Economics (indeed free market in general) like it was some sort of curse and the effective "trading of one slave master for another"....
You appear to be a believer in the illusion of the uncontrolled and unrestricted free market somehow being a benevolent master. We have seen what happens when the US economy has no controls whatsoever; that time was when employees were treated as property to be bought, sold, beaten, and raped. Perhaps you are reasonable enough to realize that going to that extreme would be a terrible idea from the viewpoint of (at least) 99.9% of the population, however roman_mir (the first account of udachny, who I replied to) does not.
There are, indeed, times when the government should be called upon to step in and protect those who cannot protect themselves. An unrestricted market will do absolutely nothing to protect those people, indeed it will reward their exploitation.
Was he trying to be ironic with the title? Because if anything is a guaranteed route to serfdom, it is Austrian economic (especially at the extreme measures that you and other ron paul worshippers advocate).
That, or the author is using a different definition of serf than what most people are familiar with. Most people remember that serfs were essentially the property of their lords; they did not own the property they lived on or much of anything else. They had pretty well no rights as humans and could be evicted or fired with no notice or recourse. They could be conscripted into military service and they had to give all their yields from their work to their masters.
Basically, it is the same situation we would be in if all the economic policies you so fervently advocate were enacted. You just seem to be in the illusion that you would be on top this time rather than being a serf yourself.
I caught ~20 minutes of it while driving home from work tonight. It did seem like Biden was more aggressive than the usual M.O. for this administration and Ryan was surprisingly calm. Considering how far outside the mainstream Ryan's ideas fall, I figured he would be more passionate about it. It seemed like the moderator didn't do much to stop them from addressing each other directly, yet it didn't seem to phase Ryan much.
That said, what I heard was towards the end. Attitudes of the candidates may well have changed along the way.
Not law enforcement - they don't really care because if they need to, they can just ask and most registrars will just gladly hand it over. May take a warrant or so.
I disagree with you on this one. Registrars don't fear warrants from law enforcement in most cases, because in most cases the registrars who sell domains to people who are out to do things that violate (for example) US laws will be set up in countries where such laws do not exist. If the registrar is located in, say, China, and the warrant comes from the US, it goes right into the trash. Interpol doesn't give a damn either, they have bigger fish to fry.
A great example is the "Canadian Pharmacy" scam that we see all the time. The domains are usually.com, registered to an address in Russia (if the address isn't obfuscated by a service), by way of a registrar in Asia. The ISP for the IP address is generally in another former soviet country. Sure, they are breaking American laws (and probably laws in many other countries, too), but the American warrant doesn't mean shit to the registrar, ISP, or the owner of the web site.
Likely some group in law enforcement wants to see if there are any illegal domains that are registered to American addresses, so ICANN is pretending to care about the problem for a little while. By the end of the month they'll be back to their old game.
I can't tell if you are the most misinformed person on the planet regarding this matter, or if you are intentionally lying. I will optimistically hope for the former.
OK, first of all, he could have been bipartisan from the start
Obama was bipartisan throughout the process. He encouraged congressional democrats to work with republicans on the matter. Committees were formed and drafts were written by bipartisan committees.
written only by his goons
If Obama is the socialist monster that the conservatives paint him as, why would he have had "his goons" write a bill that changes so little? A true socialist would have insisted on socialised medicine - or at least a single payer option. This bill has neither - because it was written by conservatives.
had no chance in hell of getting a bipartisan vote accomplished with
It had no republican support because they intentionally acted to prevent him from getting credit for passing a health care bill. Even though the bill was their own creation, the power of spite was more important to them, so that they could tell their constituents that they voted against "Obamacare".
Your next part doesn't match the reality of the situation, either:
IN the situation he landed himself in, he could have done a number of things:
1) Slim down the bill to only the parts everyone agrees on
The president does not have the power to do that on his own. As I already mentioned the president does not have line-item veto any more. And if he had sent it back, he never would have seen it again in any form.
Nix it and start from square one
That is not an option for the reasons I described earlier. He could have vetoed it, but that would have been a huge victory for the republicans. He would have never seen another bill in any way related to health care had he vetoed this one.
And finally, the process wasn't "hijacked" -- it went down exactly as he planned, completely unilaterally and partisan.
The fact that you have stated the same lie twice suggests you might actually know it to be not true.
Blue Dogs couldn't stand the public option.
The public option was dropped by the republicans who authored the bill. Blue dog democrats had no chance to voice their opinion on the matter.
ICANN doesn't give a rat's ass about the validity of data in WHOIS, and hasn't for a long time. Someone (perhaps in law enforcement?) probably put a little pressure on them something recently and now they are putting on a show. It will blow over soon enough and we'll be back to business as usual, with ever-increasingly-more-meaningless WHOIS data.
From my own experience I would say at least 80% of the records I have looked up in the past several months for extant domain names have had obfuscated information, protected by registrars who don't give a damn that their customers are conducting illegal activities (fraud, selling drugs, selling pirated software, sending spam, etc) through the domains that they sold them. ICANN doesn't give a shit about "protected" obfuscated domain names, and doesn't care about ones with blatantly false data, either.
ICANN just wants to make money. They'll either find a way to make more money with this, or - more likely - they will give it up once the pressure is off.
Slashdot Mirror
Fragmentation of the paging/swap file is a non issue. The OS rarely need to read more than a few blocks sequentially. Actually, one could argue that the best place for the paging file in a memory-constrained system (where swapping happens a lot) is at ½ disc width - or centered in the partition. If that happens to be interleaved with other files which are also access in a random-access pattern - so be it. It is still more optimal.
Perhaps I was unclear. The fragmentation of the paging/swap file is not the big issue here per se, rather it is the effect on the rest of the storage volume of having a fragmented swap file. When windows makes the paging file look like buckshot scattered around the hard drive, it naturally ends up scattering the files themselves all over the hard drive. Pretty soon you have a hard drive full of fragmented files, and since the paging file is often rewritten entirely each time the system boots, you end up with an increasingly fragmented paging file as well
The end result is that eventually you end up with a hard drive that cannot be defragmented significantly in any reasonable amount of time. Had the paging file been on a different partition (or separate drive altogether) that would have prevented this.
Of course, a lot of windows users would respond to this by buying a larger hard drive and then reinstalling their OS. That is not inherently a bad thing, though it doesn't prevent the problem from happening again later.
I know you asked about securing, but there is more than just security that is often overlooked in windows, that can be learned from the *nix world.
First, don't give anyone admin privileges with their default account. You are just asking for trouble if you do.
Second, the swap file should have its own partition. In *nix this is pretty much dogma, and it well should be in windows as well. Everyone knows that windows loves to fragment the hell out of its own file system, and the windows swap (paging) file is no exception. If you put it on its own partition you will make defragmentation a lot easier later when you have to do it.
This place is overrun by people who qualify for something far, far, from genius.
Sure, there are some that do a mediocre job, but there are some that do a really great job. These journals - most of which are quite new - are coming online and expanding to meet a demand. After all, the US taxpayer in particular has demanded that we get access to the published results of publicly-funded health and science research, which is fulfilled in part by these open access journals.
Just give the journals some time to sort this out. Most of them are doing a very honest job of pursuing their goals, but some flak will squeeze through. After all, there isn't a lot of money available to pay academics to review journal articles and determine the value of the research.
There are some pro-life libertarians.
Ron Paul is very anti-abortion, and his followers are a huge part of the potential Gary Johnson voters. However as I said there is nothing that they fear more than Obama, so in the end they will vote Romney to try to get rid of Obama.
Your claims that Ron Paul only wants government out of marriage for tax breaks needs a citation. Ron Paul doesn't want ANY income tax
The correct statement there would be that Ron Paul does not want to pay any income tax. He doesn't give a shit what other people have to pay. He knows that married couples with kids get tax breaks on their federal (and often state) tax returns. He wants that to go away to reduce his own tax burden to as close to zero as possible.
Yes Ron Paul is anti-war. You are again distorting both Ron's views
No. Go back and read what Ron Paul has said. He has never said that war is wrong. He has just expressed opposition to specific conflicts. The reason is obvious - he just doesn't want to pay for war.
Personal liberty is a HUGE part of the libertarian platform, as the other reply to your comment has mentioned.
If that is the case, then the libertarians should distance themselves from Ron Paul. To Ron Paul personal liberties take a back seat to taxes and profits. Ron Paul puts the advancement of corporate interests above pretty well everything else, followed by reducing his own tax burden, followed by pretty well nothing because his cares end there. Personal liberties don't mean shit to Ron Paul; if they did then he would actually want to do something to protect individuals from powerful entities like corporations. Instead he does exactly the opposite of that.
pro-choice
Citation needed...
pro-gay marriage
Ron Paul is most definitely not in favor of gay marriage. He wants the gov't to stop recognizing marriage entirely so that people don't get the married rate for taxation.
anti-religion in government
Ron Paul is building his own religious movement that is what he will install in government
anti-war
Ron Paul is not actually anti-war. He just opposes paying for war. A Ron Paul administration would not result in less war, just fewer wars fought by the US armed forces. Wars would instead by fought by conscripted employees of Lockheed-Martin, United Defense, and Coca-Cola against countries where they have economic interest. As corporations would have unlimited rights - and employees none - there would be no recourse against this.
Libertarians may be to the right of Republicans on fiscal issues
True
but they are to the left of Democrats on social issues
Not true. They see everything as a fiscal issue, and make every policy stance based on that.
There are some libertarian leaning Republicans, but the RNC showed us all exactly what the GOP thinks of that faction of their membership.
But in the end the vast majority of libertarians will join back with the GOP and vote for Romney because they can't stand to see another four years of Obama.
Gary Johnson is a clone of Ron Paul, who is just GOP turned up to 11. He offers nothing new, he just cranks everything the GOP wants up to an extreme level that the party leadership realizes they cannot sell. Unlike the regular GOP brass, however, he manages to pull in a few younger people who don't read the full text of what he wants - or the analysis of what it would actually do to the vast majority of Americans.
Jill Stein, on the other hand, actually offers some new ideas. Unfortunately nobody will take her seriously. Unlike in 2000, however, when republicans ran ads for Nader to pull voters away from Gore, Stein is being ignored outright because if the two main parties acknowledged her then people might realize how little difference there is in action between the republicans and the democrats.
This sort of is the problem in most of the world, but it seems even worse in science.
If by science you mean academic science, you are wrong. The top paid scientists in academia make less than 5 times as much as an average (in terms of pay) post-doc. Even if you leave science but stay in academia - moving to administrative - your salary doesn't go up that much. The top paid university presidents and chancellors don't make that much more than department heads (and generally a hell of a lot less than the football and basketball coaches at the same schools)
There are far greater pay differentials in industry than in any academic institution I am aware of in the US.
So, you're saying that the assistant professors are probably the ones I've read about being on food stamps?
I don't know of any on food stamps, but to spell it out yet again, the progression through academia generally goes:
Some universities also have "Research (X) Professor" titles, the significance of which varies from one institution to another. A departmental chair is generally a full professor who was promoted, though that also varies.
Universities should be models for the liberal worldview
You don't seem to understand either...
Instead, we find income disparities just like we find in the corporate world.
Actually, no. They are not "just like" the corporate world. Top execs in the corporate world make hundreds (if not more) times as much as the peons who do the actual work. That does not happen in academia. Virtually nobody in American academia who has an actual academic job makes over $250k from that job alone.
You've said people without degrees have no right to expect to be paid living wages
You're bastardizing my words, to say the least. That doesn't surprise me considering how little you know about this topic that you are trying to portray yourself as being somehow knowledgeable on.
For that matter, nobody mentioned anything about the wage at a university being "liveable". Generally, while the wage of a grad student is terrible, it is designed to be sufficient for one student to live on. That is why grad students are paid more in San Francisco than in the middle of Iowa.
discussing a university paying all of its employees a living wage is not relevent to its progressive worldview
Perhaps you are confusing minimum wage with a livable wage? You do seem to be easily confused, so that could be an explanation here. While the hourly wage of a grad student is miserable - especially when you consider they generally are paid a stipend and then expected to work 80 hour weeks for it - the stipend is set to match the cost of living for that geographic area. If they want to work in science for better money and fewer hours, they could take their four-year degrees and become technicians. They know exactly what they are signing up for when they become grad students.
Can the phd student decide they don't like their working hours, and pick up and switch schools?
Sure, they can always drop out and find a different program.
What would happen to them?
There is no one answer to that question. It depends on where they leave, and where they go; as well as what they did where they left. It is not that uncommon, though.
No, they can't just switch without a tremendous cost.
Oh, because you just pulled that answer out of your own rear end, we should believe it without question - even though you don't know squat about academia?
In the corporate world, when a company pays workers a bad wage for the simple reason that they can, it's considered to be a problem.
You're missing the point - apparently in an effort to share what you have heard on conservative talk radio - entirely.
There is a huge difference between paying a graduate student poorly and paying someone at Walmart poorly. The graduate student already has a 4-year degree (and in some cases, a master's as well) and is able to take a better-paying job doing something else if they prefer. They have, instead, opted to enroll as a graduate student and accept the low pay under the promise of being able to move afterwards to a position that will pay better based on what they can demonstrate they have learned in graduate school.
Quite to the contrary, a Walmart employee has generally almost no qualifications, and almost no chance for advancement. You can work at Walmart for half a decade and have nothing to show for it - in some cases not even health insurance. If you leave they will trash your name to any prospective future employer, and you won't have anything to show to prove them wrong.
Associate professors make low wages
That should be ASSISTANT professors. Being as you don't know the difference, this conversation probably won't ever sink in for you as to just how wrong most of what you have written thus far has been. Associate professors make a very reasonable salary; they have been promoted based on their experience, their publication record, their funding, and various other very measurable metrics. Which is why there is nothing inherently not liberal or progressive about the system. You have to work for what you are paid, and those who are better at their job - by way of a proven track record - are promoted and paid better as a result.
the folks who work in the cafeterias. What are their wages?
That is your least logical question yet. The people in the cafeterias don't have PhD's or publication records.
Again, we're talking about organizations that are run by liberals; they have the power to shape the organization any way they want.
Being as you don't seem to have even a basic grasp of what it means to be liberal, that statement is meaningless.
And, the result is something that is very similar to the corporate world that they criticize
You are, as usual, very very wrong. I could spell it out yet again for you here but you won't read it.
"Full professors earn on average about 70% more than assistant professors in the same institution." That doesn't exactly sound equitable, does it?
It is primarily rewarding seniority, and a legacy of accomplishments (which are rewarded with tenure and promotion). There is nothing inherently non-liberal about that. Also, full professor is TWO steps up from assistant professor (which is what the statement you quoted referred to) with associate professor in between.
But what do the folks at the top do? At many institutions, division chairs don't teach classes at all. Many will teach 1 or two classes per semester, and keep "office hours".
Do you really think that managing an academic department is easy? For that matter, do you have any idea what goes in to teaching a university level science class?
equal pay for equal work,
Again, rewarding seniority and a history of accomplishment is in no way inherently not liberal.
good working conditions
The ability to do the work that you went to school for most of your life for, a positive collaborative environment, those are pretty good conditions by the way that most academics see them. Just because they don't have free massages at work doesn't mean the conditions are bad.
an environment that cares about the individual (aka no 80 hours weeks)
Nobody in academia goes in not knowing about that. They could have chosen to go into industry instead, or become a technician.
But none of that happens, does it?
You don't have the slightest idea how academic research actually works, do you? Have you ever even met someone with a PhD in the sciences?
I was going to predict that in this slashdot discussion, roman_mir would recite his religious mantras using multiple accounts while ignoring the reality of the situation entirely. Looks like I win.
So, Mr(s). Tenured Professor, how many hours a week do you work for that $200,000 salary?
There are virtually no tenured professors in the US being paid that much. Whoever wrote that comment is pulling number out of their ass to push their misinformed agenda. The only people at most universities who are paid at that level are top executives (who don't teach or conduct research, and should not be called professor) or sports coaches.
A system where a few people at the top make really good money while working very few hours. Meanwhile, the people at the bottom work huge hours for little or no money.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The notion of "people at the top make really good money while working very few hours" is utter bullshit, unless you are talking about the executives in charge of universities who are more likely to be business (conservative) types than science (liberal) types. And the executives at major universities are, with few exceptions, being paid far less than the football and basketball coaches at the same schools. The vast majority of actual teaching and research faculty work very long hours every day for the kind of money that business execs in this country would laugh at.
Active faculty members not only are working full days at least 5 days a week, they are also spending most of their time at home working on grant applications and publications so they can keep their jobs.
In other words, what you said is utter bullshit.
This applies to pretty well every science PhD program in the states. You suffer for less than minimum wage for many years and then you get tortured more when you want to finish.
Of course,many grad students in the US are union-represented. Unfortunately like in pretty much every other industry in this country, the unions have pretty well no power over anything. If you're really lucky your union will negotiate a 5% discount on parking for you in comparison to what visitors are paying for the same space - though you'll still be parking 5 times further from the lab than your PI and paying 4 times his rate for that privilege.
In the unlikely event that you'll come back to read my reply, it's worth pointing out that I don't care about any of the platforms you are listing plans to release titles for. Release something - especially your "final right" platform fighting game - for Wii or Linux and I'll happily send money your way.
That was the first game I ever changed the code on. Of course, first we played it as is to figure out what we could do. Then we went into the code and broke it - who says bananas can't fly straight through solid buildings?
I'd suggest you go buy a used Wii for him. You should be able to pick one up for around $50 secondhand if you look a little bit. It should be no problem for him to pick up and play with.
Besides, the best computer games require the ability to read. No offense but I suspect your 3 year old isn't very literate yet.
It apparently happened off the coast of Florida.
Until we can break the illusion that the State is benevolent and only wants what is good for us, we'll have people ridiculing Austrian Economics (indeed free market in general) like it was some sort of curse and the effective "trading of one slave master for another"....
You appear to be a believer in the illusion of the uncontrolled and unrestricted free market somehow being a benevolent master. We have seen what happens when the US economy has no controls whatsoever; that time was when employees were treated as property to be bought, sold, beaten, and raped. Perhaps you are reasonable enough to realize that going to that extreme would be a terrible idea from the viewpoint of (at least) 99.9% of the population, however roman_mir (the first account of udachny, who I replied to) does not.
There are, indeed, times when the government should be called upon to step in and protect those who cannot protect themselves. An unrestricted market will do absolutely nothing to protect those people, indeed it will reward their exploitation.
The Road to Serfdom
Was he trying to be ironic with the title? Because if anything is a guaranteed route to serfdom, it is Austrian economic (especially at the extreme measures that you and other ron paul worshippers advocate).
That, or the author is using a different definition of serf than what most people are familiar with. Most people remember that serfs were essentially the property of their lords; they did not own the property they lived on or much of anything else. They had pretty well no rights as humans and could be evicted or fired with no notice or recourse. They could be conscripted into military service and they had to give all their yields from their work to their masters.
Basically, it is the same situation we would be in if all the economic policies you so fervently advocate were enacted. You just seem to be in the illusion that you would be on top this time rather than being a serf yourself.
I caught ~20 minutes of it while driving home from work tonight. It did seem like Biden was more aggressive than the usual M.O. for this administration and Ryan was surprisingly calm. Considering how far outside the mainstream Ryan's ideas fall, I figured he would be more passionate about it. It seemed like the moderator didn't do much to stop them from addressing each other directly, yet it didn't seem to phase Ryan much.
That said, what I heard was towards the end. Attitudes of the candidates may well have changed along the way.
Not law enforcement - they don't really care because if they need to, they can just ask and most registrars will just gladly hand it over. May take a warrant or so.
I disagree with you on this one. Registrars don't fear warrants from law enforcement in most cases, because in most cases the registrars who sell domains to people who are out to do things that violate (for example) US laws will be set up in countries where such laws do not exist. If the registrar is located in, say, China, and the warrant comes from the US, it goes right into the trash. Interpol doesn't give a damn either, they have bigger fish to fry.
.com, registered to an address in Russia (if the address isn't obfuscated by a service), by way of a registrar in Asia. The ISP for the IP address is generally in another former soviet country. Sure, they are breaking American laws (and probably laws in many other countries, too), but the American warrant doesn't mean shit to the registrar, ISP, or the owner of the web site.
A great example is the "Canadian Pharmacy" scam that we see all the time. The domains are usually
Likely some group in law enforcement wants to see if there are any illegal domains that are registered to American addresses, so ICANN is pretending to care about the problem for a little while. By the end of the month they'll be back to their old game.
OK, first of all, he could have been bipartisan from the start
Obama was bipartisan throughout the process. He encouraged congressional democrats to work with republicans on the matter. Committees were formed and drafts were written by bipartisan committees.
written only by his goons
If Obama is the socialist monster that the conservatives paint him as, why would he have had "his goons" write a bill that changes so little? A true socialist would have insisted on socialised medicine - or at least a single payer option. This bill has neither - because it was written by conservatives.
had no chance in hell of getting a bipartisan vote accomplished with
It had no republican support because they intentionally acted to prevent him from getting credit for passing a health care bill. Even though the bill was their own creation, the power of spite was more important to them, so that they could tell their constituents that they voted against "Obamacare".
Your next part doesn't match the reality of the situation, either:
IN the situation he landed himself in, he could have done a number of things:
1) Slim down the bill to only the parts everyone agrees on
The president does not have the power to do that on his own. As I already mentioned the president does not have line-item veto any more. And if he had sent it back, he never would have seen it again in any form.
Nix it and start from square one
That is not an option for the reasons I described earlier. He could have vetoed it, but that would have been a huge victory for the republicans. He would have never seen another bill in any way related to health care had he vetoed this one.
And finally, the process wasn't "hijacked" -- it went down exactly as he planned, completely unilaterally and partisan.
The fact that you have stated the same lie twice suggests you might actually know it to be not true.
Blue Dogs couldn't stand the public option.
The public option was dropped by the republicans who authored the bill. Blue dog democrats had no chance to voice their opinion on the matter.
ICANN doesn't give a rat's ass about the validity of data in WHOIS, and hasn't for a long time. Someone (perhaps in law enforcement?) probably put a little pressure on them something recently and now they are putting on a show. It will blow over soon enough and we'll be back to business as usual, with ever-increasingly-more-meaningless WHOIS data.
From my own experience I would say at least 80% of the records I have looked up in the past several months for extant domain names have had obfuscated information, protected by registrars who don't give a damn that their customers are conducting illegal activities (fraud, selling drugs, selling pirated software, sending spam, etc) through the domains that they sold them. ICANN doesn't give a shit about "protected" obfuscated domain names, and doesn't care about ones with blatantly false data, either.
ICANN just wants to make money. They'll either find a way to make more money with this, or - more likely - they will give it up once the pressure is off.