Windows should come with NO browser installed, they should let you choose what browser you want to install. Once you get your system, you just go to your browser of choice's website and download... oh, right.
But Obama is evil and hates the internet! All those things he told us during his campaign were lies! I'm not going to believe this and instead am going to point out every other example that he is in the pocket of the telcos and the media companies.
Amen! When the average person is presented with making 1 billion over the years or making 100 million right away and running, they will almost always choose the 100 million even at the expense of the viability of the system they are benefitting from. Why? Because not only is instant gratification a universal human desire, but there's no guarantee that the cash cow they are milking will be around long enough for them to collect that 1 billion. Why work an honest living when you can just take money by selling inflated stock, selling bad financial products, and taking hefty bonuses and then cut and run when the whole thing falls apart? As long as the money is in your pocket, you don't care about the system, there are hundreds more to exploit.
Of course, sometimes that system is just a single business, and sometimes it is an entire economy.
Well, if you're going to argue with me about semantics instead of the issue at hand, it is obvious you're not serious about the discussion and are only looking for a pissing contest. My point was that I am a U.S. citizen born out of an immigrant family, just like you. I may be first generation and you may be second, but the main idea is the same.
"...I did just fly over to a country with relatively closed immigration policies..."
So? My point is that it is much easier to enter the U.S. because of it's rather open immigration policy compared to other countries. You are simply asserting what I am saying, that in order to immigrate into another country, a U.S. citizen would have to "jump through various hoops" and "struggle" much more than foreign guest workers entering the U.S. It should be a two way street, that is if the citizens of India want the citizens of the U.S. to be more open to allowing them to work in our economy, then they need to loosen their protections on their own jobs and corporations so that it more equally matches our protections. Why should India do that? Well, why should the U.S. continue to do that? India has clearly benefited from protectionist policies during the current global crisis.
"...each wave of immigrants argued against permitting the next wave to come in..."
You're right, for example, the Mexican-Americans are saying to close the door on the Mexicans, as many other races and ethnicities that are naturalized are now doing. Is this wrong? It depends on the context. Right now, the U.S. unemployment rate is ballooning, and the last thing on every citizen's mind is whether someone from out of the country has a job, they are more worried that they have a job. Is there something wrong with the desire to ensure one's own survival? That's not selfish. This isn't about buying more toys, this is about being able to put food on the table, or the floor if you can't afford a table. Denying an intelligent non-citizen a job and leaving a citizen jobless are both poor choices, but we still must choose even if it is the lesser of two evils, which I believe to be giving the qualified citizen a job at the expense of the non-citizen. If the economy was booming and jobs couldn't be filled fast enough and citizens still said, "no immigrants," then that would be selfish.
When the economy begins to grow again, and there are more jobs than local bodies to fill them, then I say start opening the door to fulfill demand, until then you are simply flooding the market with labor which will not only effect quality of life but quality of production as well. I was in support of increasing naturalization of farm workers when there was high demand for there and no Americans willing to do the job due to better opportunities, but now with the unemployment rate and reduced opportunities, some Americans may actually need those jobs, or at least what is left of them.
It is not only the citizens who are greedy, but the non-citizens who feel entitled to the job simply because they believe themselves to be more qualified. I highly doubt many of the non-citizens who come here to work care one iota about their American neighbor. All they want is to collect a much bigger paycheck and obtain citizenship so they can continue to collect that paycheck, at which time they'll be the one's closing the door on the next wave of immigrants.
So it seems the answer is for Americans to start sending their children to universities in other countries? If the quality of the education is roughly the same, I don't see a problem with this, as long as they can retain their citizenship and return to the U.S. and get a decent job. We buy cheap material goods from other countries, maybe we should be buying more important stuff like a cheaper education?
Oh yes, me stupid American, me can just fly over to another country and start working! No, of course I can't. Not all economies are as open as the U.S. economy is, and some countries take very protectionist stances. Just look at the "It should be a two-way street" thread above. It's very easy to qualify as a foreign guest worker in the U.S., you just need a B.A. from a U.S. University or an equivalent foreign university. The difficulty is that there are more applicants than visas actually handed out each year.
Also, most U.S. citizens have had decades of investment in the U.S. through taxes and property owned, leaving would be much more complex and a much greater loss for a person in that situation than a non-citizen who owns no property in the U.S. and has only paid taxes for a couple of years.
"...encourage and support those businesses that act to strengthen the nation..."
This means nothing if U.S. citizens end up jobless because of the "global free market" attitude towards labor. I doubt any other country would be happy if Americans started coming in and competing against the locals for all their jobs.
Last, I too am the son of an immigrant, who became a U.S. citizen. Guess what, he agrees with me that U.S. citizens should get U.S. jobs they are qualified for, before a foreign guest worker is considered. If there really are no U.S. workers available for a job, then a foreign guest worker can be considered.
The U.S. unemployment rate is rising, meaning there are fewer and fewer jobs available. You may be willing and able to contribute and pay taxes, but so are about 20 million other people in this country.
Americans don't need them, Americans businesses need them. What good does filling U.S. businesses with the most qualified foreign workers do for the average American if they end up having to take a pay cut or end up being unemployed due to a saturated job market?
as they are laid off, so what's your point? I have several colleagues with a master's and years of experience getting laid off. It's not as if U.S. citizens are getting preferential treatment when it comes to who gets laid off and who doesn't. There's an oversupply of highly qualified people and less demand for these professionals. If we're losing bright people, it's because right now we don't have jobs for them.
The fact that these highly qualified immigrants are going home is exactly why U.S. citizens SHOULD get preferential treatment when it comes to laying off or hiring people; because while an immigrant can just up and leave to their previous country, we as Americans are STUCK with this country. How many Americans have support networks outside of the U.S. that they can turn to when times get worse? It is in our best interest that this country succeed, but this country can't succeed when it invests time and money in foreign students and employees who will just up and leave when the going gets rough.
I use vmcNetflix and the old Netflix player is a necessity for some very cool functionality. With vmcNetflix and the old player, I can fast forward, rewind and skip just fine using my Xbox and remote. I can also download instant watch movies, so that I can view them later without the need for buffering from the site. Note that the downloaded movies still contain the DRM, so I still need a valid license from the Netflix site to watch them.
vmcNetflix users who have been forced to install the silverlight player have had nothing but issues with it and vmcNetflix, including losing the ability to fast forward and rewind. I will avoid upgrading to the silverlight player as long as I can, because the old player works great and is much better integrated with the Xbox.
So when a private company jacks up the price of a service or asset that it owns, knowing its customers have little choice to drop the service due to necessity or switch providers because of poor competition, it's capitalism at work; but when the government does the exact same thing, it's somehow evil? Those airwaves belong to ME, as well as every other member of the public. I am perfectly fine with the government jacking up the cost of licensing the spectrum if it'll help slow our descent into the shitter and make some positive changes for the future.
If you don't want to pay for the high cost of cellular phones, then dump the service and get a land-line. Considering that the cellular companies continue to make hefty profits even during this recession, if they decide to pass the buck onto you it's because they don't feel obligated to offer any assistance in a time of need to the very country that is their meal ticket.
We have that "equal protection" stuff too, and in our constitution no-less, but we just don't follow that part. It's more of a guideline than anything.
Why don't we have some kind of "meter" on our phones which tells us how much our call costs? How many minutes we have left? If I saw I was being charged $1 a minute I would definitely hang up.
The same thing can happen when you are close to the border. Here in San Diego, you can be near TJ and pick up their cell towers and end up roaming. At the same time, you can be in TJ and still make calls using U.S. towers. You have to be pretty close to the border though.
Lynching Bush Administration worthless to Obama right now. Wait until 2010-2011, THEN let the dirt start to be dug up about Bush & Co. When the public finds out it was much worse than we though, it will hurt the Republicans that much more.
Welcome to politics.
I happy that the noose is being loosened from around the video game industries nest. At the same time, while we are paying less attention to the accessibility of violence to children, we need to pay more attention to enabling parents to control what their kids do and do not see.
Consoles, DVD players, computers, etc, need to be sold with the strictest parental controls already installed and enforced. After purchasing, the parent can then adjust the level of sex, violence, etc, that they want their children to see, and that they themselves want to see. As of now, the effort to implement effective and user friendly parental controls in media devices has been abysmal.
Almost every one of my relatives with kids and a computer have caught them accessing inappropriate content, but they have no idea how to block it, so they often come to me and I do my best to put restrictions in place and make the controls user friendly for them. They all have the computer in a family area, but they just don't have time to watch what their kids are doing 24/7, and the computer has become a critical tool for kids to do things like homework and yes, play games.
I think everyone should start paying less attention to banning things, and more attention ensuring that parents have the strictest control over what their children watch using their media devices.
The DTV coupon was for people who had a perfectly functional TV that would be rendered worthless by the digital transition. Either you pay for them to get a digital converter so their current TV continues to work or you stick with analog.
Sending out a check would be a waste of money, but I'd be all for getting a refundable tax credit, just as good as a check.
You have the right to what you say, but you also must accept responsibility for any excessive damage or harm caused by your words.
Saying you "think" someone is an asshole is fine, because it is your opinion. Saying someone does in fact have sex with farm animals MAY be acceptable, although offensive, if it is understood to be your opinion, but that's a big if.
What if someone overhears your conversation, does not get the full context, and that information is spread as truth? The end result is damage to that person's reputation as a result of false information. Since you were the one that wantonly expressed that information in public without making it clear it was simply your opinion, you are the primary cause and thus are liable.
Freedom of Speech does not exclude you from the responsibility of damages that result from said speech. If you are going to stay something controversial, be sure you consider the potential consequences and be willing to accept responsibility before you yap your mouth off.
I've been happy with my iPhone, despite it being a juice guzzler. I think that's mainly because I spend most of my time either at home or at work and thus can plug it in and not have it use the battery. When I'm on the go, I have an iPhone compatible stereo which also charges the phone. When I'm home, I can run the phone off the battery for quite a while doing stuff like browsing from the couch or even using remote desktop on my PC.
One of the best things about the iPhone is Pandora radio. Combined with 3G, I have the best listening experience anywhere I want, including in my car over my car stereo where I may go. I listen to Pandora more than I do my music library or OTA radio.
I also love being able to comparison shop while I'm physically in the store, add appointments or contacts and have them immediately sync with google (nuevasync) and use google maps or other location based internet apps wherever I am. Basically, I have access to the internet wherever I am. I think it would be weird to go back to only having internet when near a wifi spot; it'd be like getting rid of my cell phone and going back to having a landline.
Lastly, I only have to carry around one device. I don't have to pile my phone, iPod and laptop around with me; I just slip my iPhone in my pocket. That's a huge plus for me.
As for AT&T, I actually get better reception at home and at work, while with Verizon I would often get dropped calls at home. I also haven't had any complaints about their coverage, but I only travel around Southern California for the most part. 3G speeds are frequently in the 700 - 900 Kbps, with 1.4 Mbps in the best case and 200 Kbps in the worst.
The $30 data plan is a negative, but I can afford it and I enjoy the usefulness it brings me so it's not terrible.
For some people, the iPod Touch is perfect because its battery charge lasts longer and it doesn't require a monthly fee. For others, the iPhone is a better fit because it provides internet access wherever they go and reduces the number of devices they have to carry.
Boo hoo. I've had the experience of moving to a new city for a new job, signing a lease, settling down, only to have the company do a layoff less than 6 months later. You stay and try to find a new job and then after a while, you go back to where you were.
Having a visa doesn't entitle you to citizenship, it doesn't even entitle you to residency, so when things go bad and you get the boot, don't cry as if you had a right to live and work in the U.S. any more than before you had your visa. Do you work, apply for your green card, keep up with your paperwork and you will eventually get your foot in the door. If the economy takes a dump and you get let go, go home and try again once the economy turns around.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows should come with NO browser installed, they should let you choose what browser you want to install. Once you get your system, you just go to your browser of choice's website and download... oh, right.
But Obama is evil and hates the internet! All those things he told us during his campaign were lies! I'm not going to believe this and instead am going to point out every other example that he is in the pocket of the telcos and the media companies.
Amen! When the average person is presented with making 1 billion over the years or making 100 million right away and running, they will almost always choose the 100 million even at the expense of the viability of the system they are benefitting from. Why? Because not only is instant gratification a universal human desire, but there's no guarantee that the cash cow they are milking will be around long enough for them to collect that 1 billion. Why work an honest living when you can just take money by selling inflated stock, selling bad financial products, and taking hefty bonuses and then cut and run when the whole thing falls apart? As long as the money is in your pocket, you don't care about the system, there are hundreds more to exploit.
Of course, sometimes that system is just a single business, and sometimes it is an entire economy.
Well, if you're going to argue with me about semantics instead of the issue at hand, it is obvious you're not serious about the discussion and are only looking for a pissing contest. My point was that I am a U.S. citizen born out of an immigrant family, just like you. I may be first generation and you may be second, but the main idea is the same.
"...I did just fly over to a country with relatively closed immigration policies..."
So? My point is that it is much easier to enter the U.S. because of it's rather open immigration policy compared to other countries. You are simply asserting what I am saying, that in order to immigrate into another country, a U.S. citizen would have to "jump through various hoops" and "struggle" much more than foreign guest workers entering the U.S. It should be a two way street, that is if the citizens of India want the citizens of the U.S. to be more open to allowing them to work in our economy, then they need to loosen their protections on their own jobs and corporations so that it more equally matches our protections. Why should India do that? Well, why should the U.S. continue to do that? India has clearly benefited from protectionist policies during the current global crisis.
"...each wave of immigrants argued against permitting the next wave to come in..."
You're right, for example, the Mexican-Americans are saying to close the door on the Mexicans, as many other races and ethnicities that are naturalized are now doing. Is this wrong? It depends on the context. Right now, the U.S. unemployment rate is ballooning, and the last thing on every citizen's mind is whether someone from out of the country has a job, they are more worried that they have a job. Is there something wrong with the desire to ensure one's own survival? That's not selfish. This isn't about buying more toys, this is about being able to put food on the table, or the floor if you can't afford a table. Denying an intelligent non-citizen a job and leaving a citizen jobless are both poor choices, but we still must choose even if it is the lesser of two evils, which I believe to be giving the qualified citizen a job at the expense of the non-citizen. If the economy was booming and jobs couldn't be filled fast enough and citizens still said, "no immigrants," then that would be selfish.
When the economy begins to grow again, and there are more jobs than local bodies to fill them, then I say start opening the door to fulfill demand, until then you are simply flooding the market with labor which will not only effect quality of life but quality of production as well. I was in support of increasing naturalization of farm workers when there was high demand for there and no Americans willing to do the job due to better opportunities, but now with the unemployment rate and reduced opportunities, some Americans may actually need those jobs, or at least what is left of them.
It is not only the citizens who are greedy, but the non-citizens who feel entitled to the job simply because they believe themselves to be more qualified. I highly doubt many of the non-citizens who come here to work care one iota about their American neighbor. All they want is to collect a much bigger paycheck and obtain citizenship so they can continue to collect that paycheck, at which time they'll be the one's closing the door on the next wave of immigrants.
So it seems the answer is for Americans to start sending their children to universities in other countries? If the quality of the education is roughly the same, I don't see a problem with this, as long as they can retain their citizenship and return to the U.S. and get a decent job. We buy cheap material goods from other countries, maybe we should be buying more important stuff like a cheaper education?
Oh yes, me stupid American, me can just fly over to another country and start working! No, of course I can't. Not all economies are as open as the U.S. economy is, and some countries take very protectionist stances. Just look at the "It should be a two-way street" thread above. It's very easy to qualify as a foreign guest worker in the U.S., you just need a B.A. from a U.S. University or an equivalent foreign university. The difficulty is that there are more applicants than visas actually handed out each year.
Also, most U.S. citizens have had decades of investment in the U.S. through taxes and property owned, leaving would be much more complex and a much greater loss for a person in that situation than a non-citizen who owns no property in the U.S. and has only paid taxes for a couple of years.
"...encourage and support those businesses that act to strengthen the nation..."
This means nothing if U.S. citizens end up jobless because of the "global free market" attitude towards labor. I doubt any other country would be happy if Americans started coming in and competing against the locals for all their jobs.
Last, I too am the son of an immigrant, who became a U.S. citizen. Guess what, he agrees with me that U.S. citizens should get U.S. jobs they are qualified for, before a foreign guest worker is considered. If there really are no U.S. workers available for a job, then a foreign guest worker can be considered.
Did any of the American workers get job offers if they were willing to relocate?
The U.S. unemployment rate is rising, meaning there are fewer and fewer jobs available. You may be willing and able to contribute and pay taxes, but so are about 20 million other people in this country.
Americans don't need them, Americans businesses need them. What good does filling U.S. businesses with the most qualified foreign workers do for the average American if they end up having to take a pay cut or end up being unemployed due to a saturated job market?
as they are laid off, so what's your point? I have several colleagues with a master's and years of experience getting laid off. It's not as if U.S. citizens are getting preferential treatment when it comes to who gets laid off and who doesn't. There's an oversupply of highly qualified people and less demand for these professionals. If we're losing bright people, it's because right now we don't have jobs for them.
The fact that these highly qualified immigrants are going home is exactly why U.S. citizens SHOULD get preferential treatment when it comes to laying off or hiring people; because while an immigrant can just up and leave to their previous country, we as Americans are STUCK with this country. How many Americans have support networks outside of the U.S. that they can turn to when times get worse? It is in our best interest that this country succeed, but this country can't succeed when it invests time and money in foreign students and employees who will just up and leave when the going gets rough.
Hairy milf porn? The Secret Service is totally there!
I use vmcNetflix and the old Netflix player is a necessity for some very cool functionality. With vmcNetflix and the old player, I can fast forward, rewind and skip just fine using my Xbox and remote. I can also download instant watch movies, so that I can view them later without the need for buffering from the site. Note that the downloaded movies still contain the DRM, so I still need a valid license from the Netflix site to watch them.
vmcNetflix users who have been forced to install the silverlight player have had nothing but issues with it and vmcNetflix, including losing the ability to fast forward and rewind. I will avoid upgrading to the silverlight player as long as I can, because the old player works great and is much better integrated with the Xbox.
So when a private company jacks up the price of a service or asset that it owns, knowing its customers have little choice to drop the service due to necessity or switch providers because of poor competition, it's capitalism at work; but when the government does the exact same thing, it's somehow evil? Those airwaves belong to ME, as well as every other member of the public. I am perfectly fine with the government jacking up the cost of licensing the spectrum if it'll help slow our descent into the shitter and make some positive changes for the future.
If you don't want to pay for the high cost of cellular phones, then dump the service and get a land-line. Considering that the cellular companies continue to make hefty profits even during this recession, if they decide to pass the buck onto you it's because they don't feel obligated to offer any assistance in a time of need to the very country that is their meal ticket.
but the cops did find something, they saw pornography which potentially contained an underage actor, i.e. child pornography.
We have that "equal protection" stuff too, and in our constitution no-less, but we just don't follow that part. It's more of a guideline than anything.
Why don't we have some kind of "meter" on our phones which tells us how much our call costs? How many minutes we have left? If I saw I was being charged $1 a minute I would definitely hang up.
The same thing can happen when you are close to the border. Here in San Diego, you can be near TJ and pick up their cell towers and end up roaming. At the same time, you can be in TJ and still make calls using U.S. towers. You have to be pretty close to the border though.
I thought the private sector was supposed to be better at this stuff than the government.
Lynching Bush Administration worthless to Obama right now. Wait until 2010-2011, THEN let the dirt start to be dug up about Bush & Co. When the public finds out it was much worse than we though, it will hurt the Republicans that much more. Welcome to politics.
I happy that the noose is being loosened from around the video game industries nest. At the same time, while we are paying less attention to the accessibility of violence to children, we need to pay more attention to enabling parents to control what their kids do and do not see.
Consoles, DVD players, computers, etc, need to be sold with the strictest parental controls already installed and enforced. After purchasing, the parent can then adjust the level of sex, violence, etc, that they want their children to see, and that they themselves want to see. As of now, the effort to implement effective and user friendly parental controls in media devices has been abysmal.
Almost every one of my relatives with kids and a computer have caught them accessing inappropriate content, but they have no idea how to block it, so they often come to me and I do my best to put restrictions in place and make the controls user friendly for them. They all have the computer in a family area, but they just don't have time to watch what their kids are doing 24/7, and the computer has become a critical tool for kids to do things like homework and yes, play games.
I think everyone should start paying less attention to banning things, and more attention ensuring that parents have the strictest control over what their children watch using their media devices.
This comment is comic genius.
The DTV coupon was for people who had a perfectly functional TV that would be rendered worthless by the digital transition. Either you pay for them to get a digital converter so their current TV continues to work or you stick with analog. Sending out a check would be a waste of money, but I'd be all for getting a refundable tax credit, just as good as a check.
The energizer bunny just got terminated? Oh, the irony!
You have the right to what you say, but you also must accept responsibility for any excessive damage or harm caused by your words.
Saying you "think" someone is an asshole is fine, because it is your opinion. Saying someone does in fact have sex with farm animals MAY be acceptable, although offensive, if it is understood to be your opinion, but that's a big if.
What if someone overhears your conversation, does not get the full context, and that information is spread as truth? The end result is damage to that person's reputation as a result of false information. Since you were the one that wantonly expressed that information in public without making it clear it was simply your opinion, you are the primary cause and thus are liable.
Freedom of Speech does not exclude you from the responsibility of damages that result from said speech. If you are going to stay something controversial, be sure you consider the potential consequences and be willing to accept responsibility before you yap your mouth off.
I've been happy with my iPhone, despite it being a juice guzzler. I think that's mainly because I spend most of my time either at home or at work and thus can plug it in and not have it use the battery. When I'm on the go, I have an iPhone compatible stereo which also charges the phone. When I'm home, I can run the phone off the battery for quite a while doing stuff like browsing from the couch or even using remote desktop on my PC.
One of the best things about the iPhone is Pandora radio. Combined with 3G, I have the best listening experience anywhere I want, including in my car over my car stereo where I may go. I listen to Pandora more than I do my music library or OTA radio.
I also love being able to comparison shop while I'm physically in the store, add appointments or contacts and have them immediately sync with google (nuevasync) and use google maps or other location based internet apps wherever I am. Basically, I have access to the internet wherever I am. I think it would be weird to go back to only having internet when near a wifi spot; it'd be like getting rid of my cell phone and going back to having a landline.
Lastly, I only have to carry around one device. I don't have to pile my phone, iPod and laptop around with me; I just slip my iPhone in my pocket. That's a huge plus for me.
As for AT&T, I actually get better reception at home and at work, while with Verizon I would often get dropped calls at home. I also haven't had any complaints about their coverage, but I only travel around Southern California for the most part. 3G speeds are frequently in the 700 - 900 Kbps, with 1.4 Mbps in the best case and 200 Kbps in the worst.
The $30 data plan is a negative, but I can afford it and I enjoy the usefulness it brings me so it's not terrible.
For some people, the iPod Touch is perfect because its battery charge lasts longer and it doesn't require a monthly fee. For others, the iPhone is a better fit because it provides internet access wherever they go and reduces the number of devices they have to carry.
Boo hoo. I've had the experience of moving to a new city for a new job, signing a lease, settling down, only to have the company do a layoff less than 6 months later. You stay and try to find a new job and then after a while, you go back to where you were.
Having a visa doesn't entitle you to citizenship, it doesn't even entitle you to residency, so when things go bad and you get the boot, don't cry as if you had a right to live and work in the U.S. any more than before you had your visa. Do you work, apply for your green card, keep up with your paperwork and you will eventually get your foot in the door. If the economy takes a dump and you get let go, go home and try again once the economy turns around.