What about the fact that the gov't making it easy to get extremely cheap loans and/or grants contributing to inflation in college tuition? I mean it's a simple supply/demand curve. The gov't is increasing demand by allowing a lot more people to throw a lot more money at college. College tuition has increased astronomically compared with inflation over the past few decades. Anybody else see this as NOT a coincidence?
Maybe the real answer here is to stop making it so easy for kids to afford college so they have to actually consider there options, plan, and/or work hard instead of getting easy money up front and then being a slave to it later.
I disagree. I honestly don't think there's a scarcity of materials to provide for everyone's needs. The problem is, most people don't want just what they need. They want far, far more than they need. They want creature comforts, status symbols, etc. Thus people create a scarcity problem that otherwise wouldn't exist because they want as much as they can possibly consume (and often times even more than that).
But worse than that is people usually fight each other for really stupid reasons, that mostly boil down to tribalism. I would argue that WWI and WWII were all about tribalism. The gulf wars on their face may appear to be about economics (oil), but really they boiled down to tribalism, too. Some maniac wanted more power (hussein) so he decided to take some oil fields in kuait because money = power. not that he didn't have more than enough already, but whatever. Then the US intervened for 1) economic reasons (gotta preserve that oil supply) but also because they didn't really like this hussein character (tribalism).
seems to me the guys we elect should be pushing for a law that *requires* ISPs to destroy logs after 30 days or so, rather than forcing them to preserve logs... whose side are these guys on?
So I mountain bike. Turns out these bikes have become more and more complicated, with more and more features, and I'm at the point where I don't really care about the latest carbon-fiber whatsathinger I just want to get on my bike and go, and have it not break. But when I need to fix the bike, or buy a new one, I've got to talk to sales people some of whom have a clue and some of whom don't.
Computers are like most other reasonably complex products - you've got to do your homework and never, ever trust that the salesperson knows what they are talking about. Because most don't, whether we're talking mountain bikes or personal computers.
This causes me to speculate if the reason behind the purchase of sun was that oracle didn't like doing business with HP, or saw that HP was making a ton of cash off the deal.
This won't end well. I have an ARM device (nokia n810) and it's great. But Wintel monopoly will kill this just like it did Sparc and IBM Power. I'm sure if it's as good as they claim it'll carve out a niche, but it won't directly compete in numbers or presence with intel CPUs.
Now I'll grant you that filing this suit makes her look like a vacuous simp. But can we all agree that career services people at colleges are all a waste of time and money?
Seriously, my college career services interview basically ended up being a proof-reading of my resume (gee thanks) and a bit of crappy advice on how I need to network and should consider working part-time as an assistant manager at the Gap. The bastards don't even take their own advice - why aren't they out networking with companies HR departments to facilitate placements? Why can't they give lists of HR personnel that they've known and networked with to their graduates to help them get a leg up on the competition? Instead they offer only moderately useful mock interviews and resume advice.
This chick may be a tool but she does have a bit of a point.
Ah but you forget, the systems are connected by the most insecure component of all - people. If the people are fooled into pushing the shiney red button by misinformation delivered by the other systems, what does it matter?
My understanding from speaking with people who actually have practiced in both systems is that there really isn't much practical difference between a common law and a civil law system. In both cases, judges and attorneys look to previous cases with similar facts for guidance of what to do in present cases. The difference is the common law system pays greater lip service to following previous decisions, while still retaining almost full ability to not rely on them if it so chooses.
If you think about it, it really does make some sense - if you're a business trying to figure out how a law applies to your case, regardless of whether you're a civil law or common law system, wouldn't you look to what judges, juries, and officials have done in the past in similar circumstances?
I maintain that most of the hate directed toward lawyers and the legal system comes from 1) lack of understanding and 2) the few ridiculous fringe cases that make news but really don't represent the vast majority of legal work product
Not sure if this is done currently, but why not offer membership for businesses and individuals in some sort of open source foundation? Then the IT enterprises can pay some sort of nominal fee and at least give money back to a foundation that can then donate to worthy projects. And it would be tax-deductible as a business or trade membership. In return for membership, the org could offer a few basic services like a trade journal, consulting classifieds and/or matching consultants with enterprises who are looking for a particular solution.
UN was suggested, and while they are weak, they are the strongest international organization I know of that is supposed to be impartial.
Key phrase time: what on earth gave you the idea that the UN is supposed to be, or is in any way, impartial? I would suggest that all evidence to date would support the opposite conclusion - that the UN is a collection of self-centered nations each trying to get as much as it can from the collective.
You might get more milage out of a nokia n810 than a netbook. Mine has a battery life similar to that of my cell phone. And there's a skype client for it.
The catch is that the process costs more per barrel than just hoovering the stuff up out of the ground. Until it becomes cheaper, it's a non-starter, now matter how many dollars are thrown at the problem.
Tell the world what you've discovered, and if it's real, you'll have 10,000 copycats. Keep it secret and be first to market, and you'll be a billionaire.
Based on that thesis, I declare this article a load of crap.
When are these clowns going to learn that if they make really annoying ads that make the page load slower, nobody is going to want to look at them?
Put another way, why don't they try making the ads be part of the HTML as normal images and text, instead of annoying bloated crap ads served by a 3rd party? It seems like "ad banners" are a 1990's idea that somehow has too much momentum behind it to ditch it. Also, I think many of the big content providers (think newspapers) are really missing the boat by outsourcing their ad service.
Why not treat internet ads a lot like newspaper ads? One page, one ad, for everyone who sees it. Wouldn't that be pretty attractive for an advertiser, and maybe command a better fee? (think repetition and distribution factor).
...and we've been dancing it for decades. Big software corps, particularly ones that make the hardware and the software, have an incentive to make their stuff proprietary and to make it difficult to interoperate with anybody else's stuff. They lock you in, then lock you down. Apple is one of the worst offenders, here.
I'd like to say that when a truly open competitor comes along and offers competition, people will flock to it. But they won't because that's not how it works. Normal people buy the stuff that "just works" and apple's stuff is pretty good at that. The only way around it is for hackers to do what they do so well.
The current generation of newspapers is carrying an infrastructure designed to deal with distribution issues from 100 years ago. We have literally hundreds of newspapers in the U.S., with dozens that are considered "newspapers of record" or major players. In an age when information is instant, and you don't have to wait for dead trees to get delivered to your doorstep to get it, there's just too many news sources.
Does anyone else think it odd that the white house press room is filled with reporters? 3 or 4 reporters could do the same job as the 20 or 30 that pack that news room. I also find it funny that most of the major newspapers carry substantially the same stories. It's all very redundant, because it's designed to be distributed locally in an age when that delivery process took an entire day, and delivering over longer distances was not feasible for a daily paper.
The major newspapers will mostly die or consolidate. Technology has made redundant having a major newspaper with all its attendant printing machinery, reporters, staff, etc. in every major city. Certainly there will be a market for a few major newspapers, but not the sheer number we have today.
I don't think it's the end of the world scenario that people are painting it to be, either. We'll still have multiple sources of info (I suspect the NY Times and Wall Street journal for instance will survive, along with a multitude of local news outlets and other media outlets like cable news networks and bloggers), there just won't be the increadible multiplicity we have today.
"SH: Osiris in the U.S. is our biggest competitor. We are way ahead of most of the Chinese stem cell companies."
Also from reading the article, they don't seem to be doing anything terribly scientific. They are basically injecting stem cells into patients, along with "holistic" treatment like accupuncture. And the head guy seems like more of a business-guy than an actual researcher. So this all smells like a lot of BS to me.
Everyone keeps talking about how the big us auto makers were making SUVs and how that screwed them. It's a crock of shit. Yes, they were making SUVs, but they also made lots of very fuel efficient cars (e.g. focus, malibu, etc). The US Market is what wanted SUVs, right up until the ridiculous oil bubble, when suddenly everyone was selling their SUVs and V8 pickups that used to be cool.
Now the big 3 have fooled us all into thinking OMG, the sky is falling, lets get bailouts! when the real culprit is 3 auto makers who leveraged themselves with so much debt that they couldn't weather a short-term, irrational market swing based on unforeseen events.
The real issue here is a retarded corporate culture of short term thinking that allows managers to leverage so much with no room for uncertainty, as they know they likely won't be around to clean up the mess if/when it occurs.
If only humans fought because of shortages, you might be right. The reality is that the Earth has plenty of resources for all, but greed is a part of human nature.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the fact that the gov't making it easy to get extremely cheap loans and/or grants contributing to inflation in college tuition? I mean it's a simple supply/demand curve. The gov't is increasing demand by allowing a lot more people to throw a lot more money at college. College tuition has increased astronomically compared with inflation over the past few decades. Anybody else see this as NOT a coincidence?
Maybe the real answer here is to stop making it so easy for kids to afford college so they have to actually consider there options, plan, and/or work hard instead of getting easy money up front and then being a slave to it later.
I disagree. I honestly don't think there's a scarcity of materials to provide for everyone's needs. The problem is, most people don't want just what they need. They want far, far more than they need. They want creature comforts, status symbols, etc. Thus people create a scarcity problem that otherwise wouldn't exist because they want as much as they can possibly consume (and often times even more than that).
But worse than that is people usually fight each other for really stupid reasons, that mostly boil down to tribalism. I would argue that WWI and WWII were all about tribalism. The gulf wars on their face may appear to be about economics (oil), but really they boiled down to tribalism, too. Some maniac wanted more power (hussein) so he decided to take some oil fields in kuait because money = power. not that he didn't have more than enough already, but whatever. Then the US intervened for 1) economic reasons (gotta preserve that oil supply) but also because they didn't really like this hussein character (tribalism).
seems to me the guys we elect should be pushing for a law that *requires* ISPs to destroy logs after 30 days or so, rather than forcing them to preserve logs... whose side are these guys on?
never underestimate the construction capability of people motivated by profit and funded by capitalists
I'm not really sure what you said, but it sounds pretty awesome
So I mountain bike. Turns out these bikes have become more and more complicated, with more and more features, and I'm at the point where I don't really care about the latest carbon-fiber whatsathinger I just want to get on my bike and go, and have it not break. But when I need to fix the bike, or buy a new one, I've got to talk to sales people some of whom have a clue and some of whom don't.
Computers are like most other reasonably complex products - you've got to do your homework and never, ever trust that the salesperson knows what they are talking about. Because most don't, whether we're talking mountain bikes or personal computers.
This causes me to speculate if the reason behind the purchase of sun was that oracle didn't like doing business with HP, or saw that HP was making a ton of cash off the deal.
This won't end well. I have an ARM device (nokia n810) and it's great. But Wintel monopoly will kill this just like it did Sparc and IBM Power. I'm sure if it's as good as they claim it'll carve out a niche, but it won't directly compete in numbers or presence with intel CPUs.
Now I'll grant you that filing this suit makes her look like a vacuous simp. But can we all agree that career services people at colleges are all a waste of time and money?
Seriously, my college career services interview basically ended up being a proof-reading of my resume (gee thanks) and a bit of crappy advice on how I need to network and should consider working part-time as an assistant manager at the Gap. The bastards don't even take their own advice - why aren't they out networking with companies HR departments to facilitate placements? Why can't they give lists of HR personnel that they've known and networked with to their graduates to help them get a leg up on the competition? Instead they offer only moderately useful mock interviews and resume advice.
This chick may be a tool but she does have a bit of a point.
what makes you think time logs contain any factual information?
Ah but you forget, the systems are connected by the most insecure component of all - people. If the people are fooled into pushing the shiney red button by misinformation delivered by the other systems, what does it matter?
My understanding from speaking with people who actually have practiced in both systems is that there really isn't much practical difference between a common law and a civil law system. In both cases, judges and attorneys look to previous cases with similar facts for guidance of what to do in present cases. The difference is the common law system pays greater lip service to following previous decisions, while still retaining almost full ability to not rely on them if it so chooses.
If you think about it, it really does make some sense - if you're a business trying to figure out how a law applies to your case, regardless of whether you're a civil law or common law system, wouldn't you look to what judges, juries, and officials have done in the past in similar circumstances?
I maintain that most of the hate directed toward lawyers and the legal system comes from 1) lack of understanding and 2) the few ridiculous fringe cases that make news but really don't represent the vast majority of legal work product
Not sure if this is done currently, but why not offer membership for businesses and individuals in some sort of open source foundation? Then the IT enterprises can pay some sort of nominal fee and at least give money back to a foundation that can then donate to worthy projects. And it would be tax-deductible as a business or trade membership. In return for membership, the org could offer a few basic services like a trade journal, consulting classifieds and/or matching consultants with enterprises who are looking for a particular solution.
UN was suggested, and while they are weak, they are the strongest international organization I know of that is supposed to be impartial. Key phrase time: what on earth gave you the idea that the UN is supposed to be, or is in any way, impartial? I would suggest that all evidence to date would support the opposite conclusion - that the UN is a collection of self-centered nations each trying to get as much as it can from the collective.
You might get more milage out of a nokia n810 than a netbook. Mine has a battery life similar to that of my cell phone. And there's a skype client for it.
The catch is that the process costs more per barrel than just hoovering the stuff up out of the ground. Until it becomes cheaper, it's a non-starter, now matter how many dollars are thrown at the problem.
Tell the world what you've discovered, and if it's real, you'll have 10,000 copycats. Keep it secret and be first to market, and you'll be a billionaire.
Based on that thesis, I declare this article a load of crap.
When are these clowns going to learn that if they make really annoying ads that make the page load slower, nobody is going to want to look at them?
Put another way, why don't they try making the ads be part of the HTML as normal images and text, instead of annoying bloated crap ads served by a 3rd party? It seems like "ad banners" are a 1990's idea that somehow has too much momentum behind it to ditch it. Also, I think many of the big content providers (think newspapers) are really missing the boat by outsourcing their ad service.
Why not treat internet ads a lot like newspaper ads? One page, one ad, for everyone who sees it. Wouldn't that be pretty attractive for an advertiser, and maybe command a better fee? (think repetition and distribution factor).
...and we've been dancing it for decades. Big software corps, particularly ones that make the hardware and the software, have an incentive to make their stuff proprietary and to make it difficult to interoperate with anybody else's stuff. They lock you in, then lock you down. Apple is one of the worst offenders, here.
I'd like to say that when a truly open competitor comes along and offers competition, people will flock to it. But they won't because that's not how it works. Normal people buy the stuff that "just works" and apple's stuff is pretty good at that. The only way around it is for hackers to do what they do so well.
Hats off to you, hackers of the world.
You're right, only the employed ones do.
Oh gosh golly, where will I get my news from if all the newspapers put up a paywall!
cnn.com, foxnews.com, bbc.co.uk.... none of which appear to be in any financial turmoil like these crappy newspapers.
The current generation of newspapers is carrying an infrastructure designed to deal with distribution issues from 100 years ago. We have literally hundreds of newspapers in the U.S., with dozens that are considered "newspapers of record" or major players. In an age when information is instant, and you don't have to wait for dead trees to get delivered to your doorstep to get it, there's just too many news sources.
Does anyone else think it odd that the white house press room is filled with reporters? 3 or 4 reporters could do the same job as the 20 or 30 that pack that news room. I also find it funny that most of the major newspapers carry substantially the same stories. It's all very redundant, because it's designed to be distributed locally in an age when that delivery process took an entire day, and delivering over longer distances was not feasible for a daily paper.
The major newspapers will mostly die or consolidate. Technology has made redundant having a major newspaper with all its attendant printing machinery, reporters, staff, etc. in every major city. Certainly there will be a market for a few major newspapers, but not the sheer number we have today.
I don't think it's the end of the world scenario that people are painting it to be, either. We'll still have multiple sources of info (I suspect the NY Times and Wall Street journal for instance will survive, along with a multitude of local news outlets and other media outlets like cable news networks and bloggers), there just won't be the increadible multiplicity we have today.
How about you RTFA:
"SH: Osiris in the U.S. is our biggest competitor. We are way ahead of most of the Chinese stem cell companies."
Also from reading the article, they don't seem to be doing anything terribly scientific. They are basically injecting stem cells into patients, along with "holistic" treatment like accupuncture. And the head guy seems like more of a business-guy than an actual researcher. So this all smells like a lot of BS to me.
Everyone keeps talking about how the big us auto makers were making SUVs and how that screwed them. It's a crock of shit. Yes, they were making SUVs, but they also made lots of very fuel efficient cars (e.g. focus, malibu, etc). The US Market is what wanted SUVs, right up until the ridiculous oil bubble, when suddenly everyone was selling their SUVs and V8 pickups that used to be cool.
Now the big 3 have fooled us all into thinking OMG, the sky is falling, lets get bailouts! when the real culprit is 3 auto makers who leveraged themselves with so much debt that they couldn't weather a short-term, irrational market swing based on unforeseen events.
The real issue here is a retarded corporate culture of short term thinking that allows managers to leverage so much with no room for uncertainty, as they know they likely won't be around to clean up the mess if/when it occurs.
If only humans fought because of shortages, you might be right. The reality is that the Earth has plenty of resources for all, but greed is a part of human nature.