Second that. People who come from disadvantaged families who want post-highschool education should have the opportunity to get it and not just be told "no, you've got to take and bare some responsibility on your own life".
They do have an opportunity to get it, for example by taking a loan. The issue not that they can't get it, but who pays for it, and you seem to want other people to pay for their education. Well, at least as far as the current USA system of public universities goes, the (cruel) joke is on the disadvantaged families because most of the college students come from middle class families and up, while their education is in part subsidized by the taxes that poor people pay as well. What a nice scam to get the poor to help pay for the rich kids' education.
What is my best course of action if that is the case?
Get a job. I know people who are barely literate and still able to get jobs, even during economic crisis, so I'm sure you can too. The problem is usually not "I can't get a job" but "I can't get a job I want". There are plenty of places always hiring, fast foot restaurants, Wallmarts etc and the best course of action is to find one of those until something better comes along. If you think that's beneath you, then how is not beneath you to accept the benefits money paid by taxes of those people who do work in those jobs and worse?
That seems exactly wrong to me if your goal is to have fewer lawyers. Vague laws would lead to more lawyers because more is open to interpretation and argument. Taken to extreme, if we had very detailed laws that covered every possible situation, we could dispense with lawyers and judges altogether and have lawsuits decided by a computer. Well, not really, you'd still have the fact finding part etc, but the point is more precise the laws, less work for lawyers.
Well, anecdotal evidence but I do live in Vegas and I worked in a non gaming software company here with people who previously worked for gaming companies and moved on to other jobs without any problems. One of them works for a major military contractor right now, after working for IGT (who makes most of Vegas slot machines) for years. So I don't think it's a problem. I guess it depends on the details. If your job offer is from one of the offshore poker sites or other sites illegal in the USA, it might be a different story.
When an airline builds and runs its own airport and ATC system, give me a call.
That's as silly as saying that trucking companies are dependent on government because they don't build their own roads. A few extreme free market zealots (probably an appropriate term in this case) aside, almost everybody agrees that it's a proper role for the government to provide basic infrastructure where it is impractical for private companies to do so. I don't have a problem with government built rail network any more than I have with government built airports, roads or ports. That doesn't mean that the government should subsidize the companies using that infrastructure. The problem with rail companies is that in almost every case I know of, at least in the USA, the rail companies are either outright owned by the government (as in the case of Amtrak) or simply wouldn't be viable businesses without constant government subsidy. As for airlines, yes they too have asked for and received taxpayer money (though they are not dependent on it anywhere near as much as the rail companies) in case of near bankruptcies and that is wrong too.
Within two years, they promise to have a new kind of battery technology in place for the 500-mile electric car. If that happens,
and the cost of the battery allows the car to be similarly priced to a gasoline car, and the charging time is reasonably short so when you run out you are not carless for 8 hours or something, and the infrastructure is in place to charge the car on the road,
then I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make the Toyota Prius look like a fad.
There, fixed that for you
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
The other impact on everyone else is on the medical system - public money is spent to support someone, even if they have smoked - why should my tax dollars be wasted on helping people who are so incredibly stupid?
A great argument against nationalized health care. Once you have other people pay for your health what is to stop any random asshole from dictating what I should eat, whether I exercise enough etc etc. because after all I am wasting his money. How about you spend your money on your health and let me worry about mine.
Second hand smoke on the other hand is a good argument in favor of banning smoking in public areas, as far as it can be scientifically shown to cause real harm to others (i.e. in enclosed or crowded areas) but not in privately owned establishments.
We birthed you, we fed you, we educated you, you owe us.!!
While I agree that there is a case for the copyright and patent terms to be shorter than they are, it is scary that people can make a statement like this in apparently non-sarcastic way and get modded up for it in a forum of generally educated people. It is not some mickey mouse musician trade organizations that are moving us closer to a dictatorship, it is people like you.
Seems like NASA story comments are appearing in here. Tragically, GP might have been modded off topic and now mocked through no fault of his own. There is no justice in this world *shakes fist at the gods*
Because the government didn't want to pay for building it (nor it should) so it let private companies do it and chipped in some of the money and other incentives. Nothing unusual.
Not exactly correct. If the government is going to pay money to a private business (in this case in the form of infrastructure) because, presumably, it decides that to do so is in the best interest of the society, it needs to do so with a contract that spells out any rights that this business has to give up in return. No problem with that. But I don't see that just because a company has received some taxpayer money in the past, the government can step in at any time and tell it how to price its products or how to otherwise run its business.
It's a very odd argument to make that there is some "right" to repair products you bought and that the manufacturer should be required by law to help you. Why shouldn't the auto manufacturers be able to say our cars can only be repaired by the authorized repair shops, that's it. If you don't like it, don't buy our cars. Doesn't that provide other manufacturers with a powerful selling point: "Our cars can be repaired anywhere! Don't be ripped off by those other guys" etc etc. I still have no idea why a law is required here. Btw, if I was a car company affected by this, just on the issue of consistency there is a whole book to be written. There are tons of products out there that only allow repairs by authorized shops, at least if you don't want to invalidate your warranty.
1) Submit fake application to get the code (and in the process sign a document that says if you leak the code both of your kidneys belong to the car manufacturer
2) Get the code
3) Leak it (and surrender your kidneys)
4) Die
It's not just that you can't find any information on how to repair it, you can't take it to the corner fix-it guy either because he can't decipher the error codes. You have to take it to a Certified Mr. Coffee Specialist who will charge you 75% the cost of the coffee maker to fix it and not tell you how he did it either.
A coffee maker's ability to be repaired by the user (or to be repaired by a corner fix-it guy, or to be repaired at all) is just one of the characteristics of that coffee maker. I wouldn't want a law passed that requires it to be easy (or even possible) to repair in the same way that I wouldn't want a law passed that requires it to be easy to use, heats the coffee to the optimal temperature, or looks good in my kitchen. Free market is a LOT better at creating improvements in coffee maker products than government legislation.
It's not quite socialism, but if you think it's the job of the government to pass legislation to guarantee your "right" to information that enables you to repair your car, then I do have a very fundamental disagreement with you about what the government is for. What about coffee makers? Mine just broke down and I googled all over the place and I can't find ANY information on how to diagnose what is wrong with it! Should I write to my congressman and demand a law for the "right to repair" coffee makers?
Is seeing paranoia everywhere a kind of paranoia itself? I think if a school is going to gather (and store?) a child's heart rate and potentially other medical data, it's perfectly reasonable to ask what is it being used for and is it being disclosed to any third parties.
Because some of us think that he fact that something is seriously fucked up doesn't mean that it can't be made even worse by the government attempts to fix it. As for me, I am very much in favor of health reform, but I am not in favor of the particular plan that the current administration is proposing.
You are probably right but I can sort of see a slippery slope going on here where the heart rate is stored so that the child's progress can be measured, and then what's to stop the school collecting perhaps other medical data as well? Are schools bound by the same strict rules regarding disclosure of medical data as doctors are?
Maybe, maybe not, who can tell what an individual's motives are and who cares. I like getting money for my work and sure as hell wouldn't do it for free. I don't think the problem is with the musicians getting paid for making music, the problem is that in the music industry as it currently is for every musician there are fifty non-musicians who also expect to get paid and sooner they get cut out of the process the better.
So among all the crappy and worthless sites out there (e.g http://www.google.com/search?q=ringtones ), Google decides to banish those few that offend its mighty self by posting some amusing photos from its own product? If that is not evil it's getting pretty close.
Well, that's the least they can do. The victims of this bullying would probably have problems getting those sites to remove the images, while Google, as the copyright owner of the images and as a big corporation with lots of hungry lawyers, might have better luck.
Still, that might not be enough to get them off the hook. Depending on the details of the cases, and without knowing anything about Japanese laws, taking pictures of someone inside their own home which caused that person some harm sounds like plausible grounds for a lawsuit against Google.
For you, Linux v. Windows might represent an epic battle of good against evil, and ordinary marketing tactics by the "enemy" might seem like Goebbels like propaganda, and anybody going along with it might seem unethical and evil themselves, but this is not how most people see it. It's just business. Similar tactics are used in every industry and if you want something to get worked up about, I suggest you look into how pharmaceutical companies market their products directly to doctors. As far as Best Buy is concerned they are in business to make money and the moment they work out a scheme where by signing their employers to a Linux training course they can somehow make more money they will do it faster than your eye can blink.
Slashdot Mirror
Second that. People who come from disadvantaged families who want post-highschool education should have the opportunity to get it and not just be told "no, you've got to take and bare some responsibility on your own life".
They do have an opportunity to get it, for example by taking a loan. The issue not that they can't get it, but who pays for it, and you seem to want other people to pay for their education. Well, at least as far as the current USA system of public universities goes, the (cruel) joke is on the disadvantaged families because most of the college students come from middle class families and up, while their education is in part subsidized by the taxes that poor people pay as well. What a nice scam to get the poor to help pay for the rich kids' education.
There's a difference between excessive meddling in a citizens life and providing for your citizens.
Government doesn't provide for citizens. It forces some citizens to provide for others.
What is my best course of action if that is the case?
Get a job. I know people who are barely literate and still able to get jobs, even during economic crisis, so I'm sure you can too. The problem is usually not "I can't get a job" but "I can't get a job I want". There are plenty of places always hiring, fast foot restaurants, Wallmarts etc and the best course of action is to find one of those until something better comes along. If you think that's beneath you, then how is not beneath you to accept the benefits money paid by taxes of those people who do work in those jobs and worse?
That seems exactly wrong to me if your goal is to have fewer lawyers. Vague laws would lead to more lawyers because more is open to interpretation and argument. Taken to extreme, if we had very detailed laws that covered every possible situation, we could dispense with lawyers and judges altogether and have lawsuits decided by a computer. Well, not really, you'd still have the fact finding part etc, but the point is more precise the laws, less work for lawyers.
Well, anecdotal evidence but I do live in Vegas and I worked in a non gaming software company here with people who previously worked for gaming companies and moved on to other jobs without any problems. One of them works for a major military contractor right now, after working for IGT (who makes most of Vegas slot machines) for years. So I don't think it's a problem. I guess it depends on the details. If your job offer is from one of the offshore poker sites or other sites illegal in the USA, it might be a different story.
It's a non-working prototype solar cell glued onto a Sony reader for the purpose of having a photo of what it will some day look like: http://www.pcworld.com/article/173459/lg_develops_solar_panel_for_ebook_reader.html Actually kinda looks photoshopped on to me.
When an airline builds and runs its own airport and ATC system, give me a call.
That's as silly as saying that trucking companies are dependent on government because they don't build their own roads. A few extreme free market zealots (probably an appropriate term in this case) aside, almost everybody agrees that it's a proper role for the government to provide basic infrastructure where it is impractical for private companies to do so. I don't have a problem with government built rail network any more than I have with government built airports, roads or ports. That doesn't mean that the government should subsidize the companies using that infrastructure. The problem with rail companies is that in almost every case I know of, at least in the USA, the rail companies are either outright owned by the government (as in the case of Amtrak) or simply wouldn't be viable businesses without constant government subsidy. As for airlines, yes they too have asked for and received taxpayer money (though they are not dependent on it anywhere near as much as the rail companies) in case of near bankruptcies and that is wrong too.
Within two years, they promise to have a new kind of battery technology in place for the 500-mile electric car. If that happens,
and the cost of the battery allows the car to be similarly priced to a gasoline car, and the charging time is reasonably short so when you run out you are not carless for 8 hours or something, and the infrastructure is in place to charge the car on the road,
then I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make the Toyota Prius look like a fad.
There, fixed that for you
The other impact on everyone else is on the medical system - public money is spent to support someone, even if they have smoked - why should my tax dollars be wasted on helping people who are so incredibly stupid?
A great argument against nationalized health care. Once you have other people pay for your health what is to stop any random asshole from dictating what I should eat, whether I exercise enough etc etc. because after all I am wasting his money. How about you spend your money on your health and let me worry about mine.
Second hand smoke on the other hand is a good argument in favor of banning smoking in public areas, as far as it can be scientifically shown to cause real harm to others (i.e. in enclosed or crowded areas) but not in privately owned establishments.
We birthed you, we fed you, we educated you, you owe us.!!
While I agree that there is a case for the copyright and patent terms to be shorter than they are, it is scary that people can make a statement like this in apparently non-sarcastic way and get modded up for it in a forum of generally educated people. It is not some mickey mouse musician trade organizations that are moving us closer to a dictatorship, it is people like you.
Seems like NASA story comments are appearing in here. Tragically, GP might have been modded off topic and now mocked through no fault of his own. There is no justice in this world *shakes fist at the gods*
How do the telcos own the infrastructure?
Because the government didn't want to pay for building it (nor it should) so it let private companies do it and chipped in some of the money and other incentives. Nothing unusual.
Not exactly correct. If the government is going to pay money to a private business (in this case in the form of infrastructure) because, presumably, it decides that to do so is in the best interest of the society, it needs to do so with a contract that spells out any rights that this business has to give up in return. No problem with that. But I don't see that just because a company has received some taxpayer money in the past, the government can step in at any time and tell it how to price its products or how to otherwise run its business.
It's a very odd argument to make that there is some "right" to repair products you bought and that the manufacturer should be required by law to help you. Why shouldn't the auto manufacturers be able to say our cars can only be repaired by the authorized repair shops, that's it. If you don't like it, don't buy our cars. Doesn't that provide other manufacturers with a powerful selling point: "Our cars can be repaired anywhere! Don't be ripped off by those other guys" etc etc. I still have no idea why a law is required here. Btw, if I was a car company affected by this, just on the issue of consistency there is a whole book to be written. There are tons of products out there that only allow repairs by authorized shops, at least if you don't want to invalidate your warranty.
Let me fix that for you:
1) Submit fake application to get the code (and in the process sign a document that says if you leak the code both of your kidneys belong to the car manufacturer
2) Get the code
3) Leak it (and surrender your kidneys)
4) Die
It's not just that you can't find any information on how to repair it, you can't take it to the corner fix-it guy either because he can't decipher the error codes. You have to take it to a Certified Mr. Coffee Specialist who will charge you 75% the cost of the coffee maker to fix it and not tell you how he did it either.
A coffee maker's ability to be repaired by the user (or to be repaired by a corner fix-it guy, or to be repaired at all) is just one of the characteristics of that coffee maker. I wouldn't want a law passed that requires it to be easy (or even possible) to repair in the same way that I wouldn't want a law passed that requires it to be easy to use, heats the coffee to the optimal temperature, or looks good in my kitchen. Free market is a LOT better at creating improvements in coffee maker products than government legislation.
It's not quite socialism, but if you think it's the job of the government to pass legislation to guarantee your "right" to information that enables you to repair your car, then I do have a very fundamental disagreement with you about what the government is for. What about coffee makers? Mine just broke down and I googled all over the place and I can't find ANY information on how to diagnose what is wrong with it! Should I write to my congressman and demand a law for the "right to repair" coffee makers?
Is seeing paranoia everywhere a kind of paranoia itself? I think if a school is going to gather (and store?) a child's heart rate and potentially other medical data, it's perfectly reasonable to ask what is it being used for and is it being disclosed to any third parties.
Because some of us think that he fact that something is seriously fucked up doesn't mean that it can't be made even worse by the government attempts to fix it. As for me, I am very much in favor of health reform, but I am not in favor of the particular plan that the current administration is proposing.
Are people really this paranoid?
You are probably right but I can sort of see a slippery slope going on here where the heart rate is stored so that the child's progress can be measured, and then what's to stop the school collecting perhaps other medical data as well? Are schools bound by the same strict rules regarding disclosure of medical data as doctors are?
The finds include a hairy caterpillar, an iridescent beetle, a striped possum, and what may be the world's largest rat
Note to self, cancel all plans for a vacation on Mount Bosavi.
Is accumulating money the reason you make music?
Maybe, maybe not, who can tell what an individual's motives are and who cares. I like getting money for my work and sure as hell wouldn't do it for free. I don't think the problem is with the musicians getting paid for making music, the problem is that in the music industry as it currently is for every musician there are fifty non-musicians who also expect to get paid and sooner they get cut out of the process the better.
So among all the crappy and worthless sites out there (e.g http://www.google.com/search?q=ringtones ), Google decides to banish those few that offend its mighty self by posting some amusing photos from its own product? If that is not evil it's getting pretty close.
Well, that's the least they can do. The victims of this bullying would probably have problems getting those sites to remove the images, while Google, as the copyright owner of the images and as a big corporation with lots of hungry lawyers, might have better luck.
Still, that might not be enough to get them off the hook. Depending on the details of the cases, and without knowing anything about Japanese laws, taking pictures of someone inside their own home which caused that person some harm sounds like plausible grounds for a lawsuit against Google.
For you, Linux v. Windows might represent an epic battle of good against evil, and ordinary marketing tactics by the "enemy" might seem like Goebbels like propaganda, and anybody going along with it might seem unethical and evil themselves, but this is not how most people see it. It's just business. Similar tactics are used in every industry and if you want something to get worked up about, I suggest you look into how pharmaceutical companies market their products directly to doctors. As far as Best Buy is concerned they are in business to make money and the moment they work out a scheme where by signing their employers to a Linux training course they can somehow make more money they will do it faster than your eye can blink.